Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRIGHTON MARINA BILL (By Order)

Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till Monday next at Seven o'clock.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Convicted Criminals (Newspaper Payments)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to require newspapers to publish the details of payments made in obtaining the exclusive confessions or autobiographies of convicted criminals or of their accomplices or associates.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): In the light of the Press Council's declared policy on this matter, I do not think there is a sufficient case for legislation.

Mr. Brooks: Does my right hon. Friend not think it disgraceful that the wages of sin should get an overtime bonus from our free Press? Would he not consider taking steps to remove the sort of unsavoury competition which underlies the present squabble going on between the People and the News of the World about Mrs. Wilson's memoirs?

Mr. Callaghan: Without going into any opinions about the particular struggle,

perhaps I might repeat that the Press Council has made a declaration which stated, among other things, that no payment should be made for feature articles to persons engaged in crime or other notorious misbehaviour where the public interest does not warrant it, and that it deplores publication of personal articles of an unsavoury nature by persons who have been concerned in criminal acts or vicious conduct. That seems to be a perfectly good statement of principle which should be lived up to.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Can the Home Secretary say whether the Press Council has put its mind to the publication of articles and payments to self-confessed traitors whose articles have been published in the Sunday Press, because the practice is very unsavoury to many people?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know what matters are currently before the Press Council but, if any complaints have been submitted to it, I am sure that it will make a report on them in due course.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is one of the unfortunate facts of life that there is a bigger readership for the memoirs of the wives of train robbers than, say, for the reminiscences of an ex-Foreign Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly. No speech.

Mr. Davidson: Would my right hon. Friend none the less not agree that it is about time that the Press Council drew up a much tighter code of ethics for newspapers to observe?

Mr. Callaghan: I was not aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) had been approached for his memoirs, but, assuming that he is, I am sure that he will get a good market price for them.

Prisoners (Parole)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the number of prisoners in each of Her Majesty's Prisons who have applied for and been successful in obtaining release on parole under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967.

Mr. Oakes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were eligible for consideration for parole before 1st April; how many he referred to the Parole Board; what their recommendations were; and how many prisoners are being released.

Mr. Callaghan: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will with permission arrange for it to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, with the exception of figures for individual prisons which I shall supply later. Up to date 350 prisoners in England and Wales have been recommended for release by the Parole Board, and a further 16 cases are under consideration.

Mr. Brooks: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of reports of widespread despair among prisoners about the number of them granted release on licence, would he confirm that the numbers that he has announced correspond broadly to those anticipated by the Criminal Justice Act? Further, can he confirm that prisoners so far unsuccessful are not excluded from consideration at future reviews.

Mr. Callaghan: I have looked at the debates on the Criminal Justice Bill, and I do not think that any firm estimate was given, although some figures were used as illustrations. I can confirm that of those who have not been recommended for parole this time, as my hon. Friend will see when he reads the information which is to appear in HANSARD, a number will be considered for a further review before expiration of the normal interval of one year.

Mr. Sharples: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of those prisoners who are being released on parole are in the final three months of their prison sentences?

Mr. Callaghan: No, I am afraid that I cannot.

Following is the information:


PRISONERS IN ENGLAND AND WALES ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE ON 1ST APRIL, 1968


1. Prisoners eligible for consideration

4,764


(a) declined consideration
417



(b) considered by local review committees
4,347

2. Considered by local review committees

4,347


(a) reported to Home Office as unsuitable for parole
3,315



(b) reported to Home Office as suitable for parole
1,032



3. Considered by Home Office

4,347


(a) referred to Parole Board
509*



(b) still under consideration
13



4. Considered by Parole Board

509


(a) recommended for parole
350



(b) not recommended for parole
143†



(c) still under consideration
16



5. Acceptance by Home Office of Parole Board recommendations


(a) accepted
350‡



(b) not accepted
nil



NOTES:


* Includes 52 recommended by local review committees not suitable.


† Includes 79 recommended by the Parole Board, and accepted by the Home Office, for a further review before the expiration of the normal interval of one year.


‡ Includes 22 whose authorised release date is, on the recommendation of the Board, later than 1st April, 1968; and two whose cases require further consideration in the light of developments since the decision was taken.

M. Yves Choliere

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why M. Yves Choliere, Secretary of the World Council for Peace, has twice been refused admission to this country.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): Because his admission could not be regarded as in the national interest. It remains open to him to apply for admission on a future occasion and any application will be considered on its merits in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

Mr. Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend look at this again? Is he aware that Mr. Choliere has not been refused entry to any other of the many countries in which he has travelled? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that a third application will be looked at without prejudice and not be decided by the fact that two applications have already been refused?

Mr. Ennals: I have already told my hon. Friend that I will certianly consider any application on its merits.

Police Recruitment (Advertising)

Mr. Cordle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on advertising to encourage police recruitment in 1967; and how much he estimates will be spent in 1968.

Mr. Callaghan: Excluding sums spent locally by police authorities, £235,113 has been spent during the present financial year in England and Wales. I am in touch with the local authority associations about the level of expenditure next year, but no decision has yet been made.

Mr. Cordle: Does the Secretary of State agree that this money has largely been wasted because of the foolhardy decision to limit police recruitment during the year? Will he assure potential police recruits, those who have been turned away this year, that they will be given places in 1969?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the difference between recruitment and an increase in establishment. In fact, according to my calculations, well over 6,000 recruits will be needed during the course of the current year to make up for wastage and for resignations of one sort or another. This will also include a number to add to the strength of the force. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will correct any misapprehension to the effect that recruits are not needed. There is a limitation put on the increase in strength that forces are able to take on during the current financial stringency, but I hope that that position will be reviewed in the next year.

Kenyan Asians

Dr. Miller: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Kenyan Asians have applied to his Department for entry into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Asians in Kenya who hold British passports and have no other citizenship have applied for permission to settle in the United Kingdom during March; how many have been granted such permission; and what measures will be taken to increase the official quota of such British subjects in the light of the

number of vouchers not taken up by immigrants from other sources;
(2) what arrangements have been made to deal with the large number of Asians in Kenya holding British passports and with no other nationality who will seek to enter the United Kingdom irrespective of their eligibility for the official quota.

Mr. Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for special vouchers have been received to date from United Kingdom passport holders since the arrival of the two man Commission in East Africa.

Mr. Callaghan: Up to 26th March, 162 applications had been made in Kenya for vouchers from the special allocation. These are being considered by the High Commissioner, and the first issue of vouchers will take place at the end of this month.

Dr. Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are approximately 25,000 unskilled vacancies in Britain and that many Kenyan Asians would settle in Britain, fill these vacancies, and make a valuable contribution to our economy and our export trade?

Mr. Callaghan: That seems to be reviving our recent debates. These applications are within the limits of tolerance which were expected by me, although not, I think, by many other hon. Members, when we laid down this quota.

Trafalgar Square (C.N.D. Demonstration)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what preparations he is making, in the interests of public order, for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament demonstration in Trafalgar Square over Eastertide.

Mr. Callaghan: This is a matter for the Acting Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. He tells me that discussions have been held with the organisers of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament on the arrangements to be made for the meeting in Trafalgar Square and he will have regard to recent experience in formulating his plans.

Mr. Marten: Without in any way wishing to goad the Home Secretary into


taking extreme measures such as departing from traditional democratic rights to demonstrate, protest against, and criticise Governments, may I ask whether it would not be preferable if such demonstrations were held in a central part of Hyde Park so as to lessen the damage to property and the risk to people?

Mr. Callaghan: Trafalgar Square is the traditional meeting place. Demonstrations have been held there from time immemorial, before the hon. Gentleman and I were alive, and I dare say they will be held there long after we have gone. I do not want to be put into the position, because of unruly behaviour on one or two occasions, of taking steps to undermine our traditions in this matter.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not a fact that in all the previous C.N.D. demonstrations at Easter there has been no damage to property or to people? Is it not somewhat ironic that, although we welcome demonstrations in Eastern Europe, there are some silly Tory Members here who try to prevent demonstrations from being held in Britain?

Mr. Callaghan: The C.N.D. demonstrations have, to my recollection, been orderly and effective protests.

Dr. Winstanley: Has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 214, which is supported by hon. Members of all parties and which calls for a comprehensive inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the recent demonstrations so as to ascertain the special difficulties of crowd control and to recommend procedures to be adopted in future? Would not this be a valuable thing now?

Mr. Callaghan: I read that Early Day Motion and I have had discussions with the police. I do not think that we can debate the Motion. I do not think that the situation is by any means out of hand, nor do I think that the police think so. I would prefer that the Commissioner should continue to handle these problems in his own way, and I shall continue to work with him in ensuring that we keep effective control but do not do more than that.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman's generally liberal and enlightened attitude will be welcomed in all quar-

ters of the House. Will he draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) the fact that silliness is not the monopoly of either side?

Mr. Winnick: Try proving it.

Mr. Callaghan: I am aware that there is a third party in the House.

Industrial and Commercial Espionage

Mr. Gardner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to require the registration of agencies engaged in industrial and commercial espionage.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): I do not think there is a need to do so at present.

Mr. Gardner: In view of the recent disclosures in the Sunday Mirror, does not my hon. and learned Friend think that, in view of the possibilities and developments here, it is about time we got round to controlling the activities of this form of private enterprise?

Mr. Taverne: There are many questions and problems in connection with this. We must first be satisfied that there is a serious problem of invasion of privacy. At the moment we are not so satisfied. If the question of intrusion into private affairs arises, obviously very serious problems affecting the liberty of the Press, and so on, will be involved. I am not saying that this matter does not require study, but it certainly does not require hasty decision.

Juveniles (Court Proceedings)

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to ensure that where possible both parents of a juvenile appearing in court are present at the proceedings.

Mr. Taverne: The law in England and Wales already provides that any parent of a juvenile who is brought before a court may be required to attend during all stages of the proceedings, and shall be so required at any stage where the court thinks it desirable unless the court is satisfied that this would be unreasonable.

Mr. Howarth: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is reported that in certain areas this matter is not being pressed as it should be, to the detriment of children coming before the courts? Will he look at the question again?

Mr. Taverne: If my hon. Friend has examples, we would certainly get in touch with the courts concerned, but it must be a decision for the courts. A general rule cannot be laid down. For example, there may be cases where the parents are separated and where it would be wrong for both parents to be required to be present.

Self-Service Petrol Stations (Model Code)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when, having regard to the contribution to national productivity that can be made by self-service petrol stations, he will publish the Model Code for attended and unattended petrol stations for the guidance of local authorities.

Mr. Ennals: Guidance on the precautions necessary at self-service petrol filling stations will be included in a revised version of the Home Office Model Code to be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in about three months time. Meanwhile, any local authority requiring advice can obtain it from the Home Office.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the hon. Gentleman put pressure on in this matter? I have been asking Questions on this matter for nearly two years. We are years behind West Germany, which has 6,000 self-service petrol stations. The Model Code should be distributed immediately.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman does not need to enjoin me to put pressure on. The advice is now ready. The only reason why there was a delay in circulating the Model Code is that we wanted to include comprehensive advice on the question of self-filling stations. It is now a matter of printing, and it will be distributed very soon.

Civil Defence Control System (Buildings)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the subterranean regional seats

of government have been closed down with the disbandment of Civil Defence.

Mr. Ennals: Buildings already provided for the civil defence control system are physical assets of operational value and are being preserved.

Mr. Jenkins: What is the care and maintenance strength of the staff at these underground bases? What is their full operational manpower strength? What is the cost of keeping this network in being?

Mr. Ennals: I would certainly need notice to enable me to answer those detailed supplementary questions. If my hon. Friend cares to write to me, I will give him full answers.

Car Drivers (Blood Tests)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will now take to ensure that blood tests carried out on drivers suspected of having an excess of alcohol in the blood are reliable and accurate; and if he will order an inquiry.

Mr. Taverne: I am satisfied that the procedures at the forensic science laboratories for the determination of blood alcohol levels are reliable and accurate.

Mr. Osborn: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. Now that the procedure has been altered, will he publish it and distribute it to police stations so that motorists know their position?

Mr. Taverne: I think that the procedure which is followed on the test is well known and is public. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman has in mind with regard to the procedure at the forensic laboratories. I am sure that he has not in mind a detailed description of the gas chromatography method.

Invasion of Privacy

Mr. Gardner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to make illegal the invasion of privacy by individuals and agencies which use long range cameras and television equipment to penetrate private offices and homes.

Mr. Taverne: On my present information I am not persuaded that there is an


urgent need for legislation but my right hon. Friend is keeping this problem under review.

Mr. Gardner: While appreciating the reason for that reply, and the reply to my Question No. 9, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he is aware that it is possible, by the use of modern equipment, to keep a constant watch inside people's homes and offices, and even to read documents if necessary? Is it not time that we had a new law to define the areas of personal privacy?

Mr. Taverne: As I said before, this is a difficult question, because it depends on the kind of law that one wants. There could be a law to deal with privacy or a law to deal with certain kinds of equipment, and we would have to decide whether to pass criminal laws, or laws to give civil rights of the kind which my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) put forward.

Mr. Hogg: Is it not a fact that a seminar was held recently at one of the Oxford colleges at the instance of the Lord Chancellor about the right of privacy and associated questions? In view of the widespread interest in this subject, when can we expect a Government announcement on its results?

Mr. Taverne: I cannot say when we can expect an announcement about it. It is a complicated question, which involves the freedom of the Press as well. At the moment there is no great evidence of abuse. For example, if one considers complaints to the Press Council about intrusions of privacy in this fashion, one sees that the complaints amount to 0·01 per cent. of the total complaints.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been concern in this country for the last 30 years about this question, that the Americans have been developing a law of privacy for well over 60 years, that the Germans have a law about privacy, and that, as a result of the Nordic Conference, there is a real danger that we shall be left behind by all other civilised nations in promoting a law on this subject?

Mr. Taverne: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an important question, and that one must keep it under review,

but I cannot at the moment promise any legislation on it. I think that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has told my hon. Friend that he looks favourably on the idea of a Select Committee examining this problem.

Burglar Alarms

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps the police take in the Metropolitan Area when burglar alarms go off accidentally;
(2) what estimate he has made of the number of burglar alarms which have gone off accidentally during the last two months in the Metropolitan Police area.

Mr. Taverne: The Metropolitan Police answer all burglar alarm calls from instruments connected to the information room at New Scotland Yard except calls generated by instruments that have persistently given false alarms and have not, despite full warning, been put right.
Last January and February, the Metropolitan Police answered 10,487 burglar alarm calls which were found to be false; but genuine calls during the same period led to the immediate arrest of 39 persons at 21 premises.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in the Streatham district in particular, to put it in Parliamentary terms, people have been submitted to all-night sittings because of burglar alarms going off falsely? Is he not perturbed about the figures which he has given? Do they not show that the whole burglar alarm system must be very suspect indeed?

Mr. Taverne: My hon. Friend has a point. It is a well-known feature of burglar alarms that at the moment there is no way of ensuring that the majority of these calls are genuine. There are many reasons why a burglar alarm can go off wrongly. The system which is followed at the moment is that if six false calls are received from an installation, the alarm company and the Association of Burglary Insurance Surveyors are warned, and also warned that if there are further false alarms the calls will not be answered. I agree that this is a problem.

Prisons (Dogs)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the 15 prisons in England and Wales at which dogs have been introduced: and how many additional prison officers are being trained as dog-handlers.

Mr. Taverne: I will with permission circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. A total of 190 officers are to be trained as dog-handlers.

Mrs. Short: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree, however, that this could interfere with the delicate relationship which exists between inmates and prison officers in the work of rehabilitation? Would not he agree that it would be far better to reply on electronic and mechanical devices to maintain security in prisons, rather than to introduce fierce dogs?

Mr. Taverne: It obviously would interfere with the relationship if dogs were in any way involved in the day-to-day control of prisoners, but this is not so. Under the present system, a prisoner will come up against a dog only if he is attempting to escape. The use of dogs enables fewer staff to be employed on custodial duties, and this means that more staff are free for other work, and can, therefore, decidate themselves to improving relations with the prisoners.

The following is the list of prisons at which dogs are now used:


Birmingham.
Liverpool.


Brixton.
Manchester.


Chelmsford.
Parkhurst.


Dartmoor.
Pentonville.


Durham.
Risley.


Holloway (limited use at night).
Wakefield.



Wandsworth.


Hull.
Wormwood Scrubs.


Leicester.

In addition it is at present planned to introduce dogs at the following further eight prisons:


Albany.
Lincoln.


Bristol.
Maidstone.


Canterbury.
Coldingley (when opened).


Gartree.



Leeds.

Car Drivers (Breath Tests)

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of cases

to the latest convenient date in which drivers have been required to provide a specimen of breath under the Road Safety Act, 1967; and in how many of these cases action was taken because the driver was suspected of having alcohol in his body, because the driver was suspected of having committed a traffic offence, and because an accident had occurred, respectively.

Mr. Taverne: Up to 31st January, the total number of breath tests required in England and Wales was 13,029. Of these, 4,352 were on suspicion of alcohol in the body; 4,128 on suspicion that the driver had committed a moving traffic offence; and 4,549 after accidents.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the widespread belief that a number of these tests are random tests? Will he give an assurance that no such tests are, in fact, taking place?

Mr. Taverne: We are fully satisfied that the police are administering this Act in accordance with the law. It was always made clear to the House that in moving traffic offences there was a random element, but every allegation of improper random testing, when investigated, has been shown to be unsubstantiated.

Approved Schools (Teachers)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he now proposes to take to provide an appeal procedure for members of the teaching profession dismissed from approved schools.

Mr. Callaghan: I am not yet in a position to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's similar Question on 15th February.—[Vol. 758, c. 389.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the right hon. Gentleman go on record as saying that since teachers in approved schools have extremely onerous tasks placed on them by the nature of their employment, the least that should be done is to give them equality of tenure with other members of the teaching profession?

Mr. Callaghan: I have been brought up on systems in which there was always proper disciplinary machinery and the proper method of appeal for staff. It is,


therefore, my anxiety that similar conditions should be introduced in the approved schools. Until I can get legislation for this purpose, I have set up a system, which I shall not describe to the House in detail now, about which I think there is considerable satisfaction in the approved school service as a temporary and ad hoc method of improving the methods of appeal for them.

Lady Diana Cooper (Police Apology)

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give an assurance that the making of a personal apology by the Deputy Commissioner of Police to Lady Diana Cooper on 23rd February will not be made a general practice in similar cases in the future.

Mr. Taverne: I hope that there will be no similar cases in the future.

Mr. Shaw: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that such treatment would not be given in the case of a less exalted person? Secondly, would not he suggest that the Assistant Commissioner might have a better use for his time?

Mr. Taverne: My hon. Friend is in a sense suggesting that special favour was shown to a member of the aristocracy, whereas it is true that the police acted in a particularly unjustified manner against a member of the aristocracy because they did not follow their normal procedure of checking information before applying for a search warrant. Since an. abnormally irregular procedure was followed, I think that an abnormal apology was justified.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that when the police make an unjustifiable mistake of this kind they will always apologise, whoever it may be?

Mr. Taverne: Even in cases where the police have every justification for asking for a search warrant, when they find that they have made a mistake, and nothing is found on the premises, they apologise.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. and learned Friend may say that preferential treatment was not shown in this case, but

is it not a fact that at least six or seven similar cases have been reported during the last six or seven months, and that in not one instance, other than that involving this noble Lady, did the Deputy-Commissioner go along and apologise?

Mr. Taverne: My hon. Friend is wrong. We debated this on an Adjournment debate, and I showed that in the case my hon. Friend had in mind there was no lack of justification for the issue of a warrant. It was justified, even though in certain cases nothing was found on the premises, and even there an apology was made.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is it not a case of noblesse oblige?

Mr. Taverne: The hon. Gentleman can put it very eloquently in French.

Prisons (Mountbatten Report)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on implementing the Mountbatten Report on Prisons.

Mr. Callaghan: A good deal of progress has been made. All prisoners are now given a security classification; the security of prisons in which Category A and B prisoners are held has been strengthened; liaison with the police has been improved; the number of prison staff recruited has risen substantially and officers are now being selected for the new grade of senior prison officer. The rate of the escapes from closed prisons is now lower.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Has the right hon. Gentleman abandoned the project for a maximum security prison in the Isle of Wight, as has been reported to have been recommended by the Radzinowicz Committee? To borrow a phrase from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), is it the intention no longer to put all the bad eggs in one basket, but to distribute them around several areas?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions would be briefer without borrowed phrases.

Mr. Callaghan: The plans for the maximum security prison have been deferred but I propose to look at them again in the


light of the Report from the Advisory Committee on the Penal System which will be published next week. I will then reach a conclusion and inform the House.

Mr. McNamara: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that all those prisons which have received special security equipment, like closed circuit television, are using it?

Mr. Callaghan: To the best of my knowledge. I have seen closed circuit television in use in at least one prison, where, I think, it is extremely effective.

Mr. Hogg: Would the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, despite the conflicting advice which I understand he has now received about the treatment of maximum security prisoners this is one of the cruxes of the matter? Will he assure us that he will not allow the difficulty of reaching a decision to delay it beyond the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Callaghan: There will be no need to delay a decision on this matter, which can be reached fairly quickly, but, in deference to those whom I asked to advise me, I think that I should give proper consideration to it and allow some time for public opinion to express itself, following the publication of the Report. I should like to be guided by the views of hon. Members and others who are interested in this matter.

Student Demonstrations (Police Costs)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with police authorities about sharing the extra cost of controlling student demonstrations which falls on the police in university towns.

Mr. Taverne: None, Sir.

Mr. Goodhart: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think it fair that the considerable expense of trying to control these demonstrations should be largely borne by local ratepayers, when local residents are rarely involved?

Mr. Taverne: This problem is part of the general duties of the police and most police forces are faced from time to time with tasks which make special demands on them. There can be no question of

making special financial provision for such eventualities, since it would be quite wrong to take out one special kind of problem and treat it differently from others.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Nevertheless, would the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that, if a football club wishes to have extra police because of a situation of potential crowding or violence, it has to pay for it?

Mr. Taverne: This is so, not if they want extra police but if they want any police: this is done by contractual arrangement and is quite a different matter.

Mr. Luard: Is it not a fact that the amount of time devoted by police in university cities to this kind of operation is a tiny proportion of their total activity?

Mr. Taverne: My hon. Friend is quite correct.

Juries (Majority Verdicts)

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases has a jury returned a majority verdict in England and Wales under the powers conferred by the Criminal Justice Act, 1967.

Mr. Taverne: Provisional figures are available for the period 1st October to 31st December, 1967. These show that majority verdicts of guilty were returned in 116 cases, involving 228 counts and 134 persons. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, a jury is not asked whether a verdict of not guilty was a majority one.

Mr. Lyon: Does this not appear to justify the view expressed by some of us when the Bill was going through that this would be a modest little reform of the law, which would make a valuable contribution but only in a very restricted number of cases?

Mr. Taverne: It certainly affects a restricted number of cases, but whether it is a modest or a major reform is very much a subjective judgment.

Riding Establishment Licence Fee

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why, in the present economic situation,


he proposes in the Miscellaneous Fees (Variation) Order, 1968 to increase the Riding Establishment Licence Fee by 1900 per cent.

Mr. Ennals: The revised fee of £10 takes account of the expense borne by the local authority in obtaining the veterinary report required before the grant of a licence. The previous fee was quite unrealistic.

Mr. King: Is it not a fact that most of these institutions teach small children to ride ponies, a harmless and pleasing occupation? Is it really reasonable to impose a price increase of such a fantastic kind, which sets an outrageous example when other members of the Government are trying to keep prices down.

Mr. Ennals: Nor would it be reasonable that a local authority and its ratepayers should bear the burden. The previous fee was only 10s. and, since the local authority must pay the cost of having a veterinary report, the average cost of which is often up to £8 or more, it is quite unreasonable that it should fall on the backs of the ratepayers.

Mr. John Smith: Why pester these people with licences at all?

Mr. Ennals: The Act was passed by the previous Administration, although I know that the hon. Member was not here then.

Sussex Police (Mr. J. D. Caldwell)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of circumstances surrounding the dispute between Mr. J. D. Caldwell of Weymouth and the Sussex Police and the statement made by police officers to Mr. Caldwell's lawyers, particulars of which have been sent to him, he will authorise the payment to Mr. Caldwell of appropriate compensation.

Mr. Taverne: Any question of compensation is a matter for the Sussex Police Authority.

Robert Grice and John Garvey

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority the governor of Brixton

Prison held Robert Grice and John Garvey in custody for more than four months.

Mr. Taverne: By the authority of warrants issued periodically from 7th September, 1967, onwards by the Thames and Marylebone Magistrates' Courts. After several unsuccessful applications for bail, the two men were allowed bail on 8th December by the Central Criminal Court, provided that each obtained satisfactory sureties. These conditions were not fulfilled until 2nd February, 1968, in the case of Grice and 22nd February, 1968, in the case of Garvey.

Mr. Hamling: Is it not wrong that poor prisoners should be denied both bail and legal aid when wealthy villains can get away with it?

Mr. Taverne: This is a general proposition with which I find it difficult to deal. Bail and legal aid are entirely matters for the court. These individuals, like many others, were badly hit by the delay which unfortunately exists in bringing cases to trial.

Mr. Lipton: Will my hon. and learned Friend make it clear that the Governor of Brixton Prison is not to be held blameworthy in this or similar cases? Is he aware that, Brixton being a remand prison, the length of time that a person is on remand is entirely without the control of the Governor himself?

Mr. Taverne: I am glad that my hon. Friend has enabled me to make that clear. It was entirely a question of whether these men could find the sureties asked for by the courts, and over this the Governor of Brixton Prison would have no control.

Obscene Publications Act

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds were 1,479 negatives seized on the premises of Jean Straker, 12 Soho Square, London, W.1; what charges were preferred against him, under what Statute; and whether, in the light of the court's decision in this case, he will now seek to amend the Obscene Publications Act.

Mr. Taverne: Some 2,000 negatives were seized last June at these premises under a magistrate's warrant issued under


the Obscene Publications Acts. Mr. Straker was subsequently charged in respect of some 700 of these negatives under Section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act, 1959, as amended by Section 1 of the 1964 Act. I have no proposals for amending the Obscene Publications Acts.

Mr. Hamling: Why not? Is my hon. and learned Friend not aware that, throughout the West End, obscene pictures are widely on sale, yet it is an artist who is prosecuted?

Mr. Taverne: The question of whether he was justifiably prosecuted is not one for me. He had an opportunity of trial by jury, which he did not accept, and he put forward a defence of public good. It was a matter for the court to decide this and is not a matter on which I could judge.

Auxiliary Fire Service

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual cost of maintaining the 14,000 personnel of the Auxiliary Fire Service in England, Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Ennals: The cost would have been about £1·3 million in 1968–69, rising to about £1·5 million in 1970–71.

Mr. Farr: Since the members have now offered to give up all payment, whether of bounties, subsistence or expenses, including all travelling expenses, can the hon. Gentleman not respond in a suitable manner to this noble gesture and allow the Fire Service to continue?

Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend and I have explained to the House a number of times that the bounty and expenses amount to only 8·5 per cent. of the total cost. Although one appreciates the generosity of those who have said that they would be prepared to forgo them, they would make very little difference to the savings which we are required to make.

Fire Service (Holroyd Committee)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the Holroyd Committee on the Fire Service.

Mr. Ennals: The Committee is still taking evidence, and my right hon. Friend does not expect to receive its report before next year.

Mr. Hannan: But surely my hon. Friend is aware of the frightening in-

crease in the losses by fire in this country? In view of the urgency of these proposals now, particularly the more effective and widespread measures for fire prevention, can he not hurry this matter up in any way?

Mr. Ennals: It was because of the urgency of the rising cost of damage by fires that my right hon. Friend decided to establish this extremely important survey. It is the first study of its kind for over 30 years, and when it was established last year, it was recognised that, with all the evidence which had to be taken and all the considerations which had to be given, there could not possibly be an answer before next year. It is a very important survey.

Habitual Drunken Offenders

Mr. Hilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Working Party on Habitual Drunken Offenders to make a report.

Mr. Taverne: I understand that the working party, which is meeting every two weeks, hopes to complete taking evidence by the end of May. It is too early to say when it will be able to present its report.

Mr. Hilton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that that is the sort of answer that we have been receiving for years, that the solution to this very great problem may depend on the outcome of this working party and that as long as there is procrastination the problem will never be solved?

Mr. Taverne: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. I heard of it at the school which I was addressing yesterday. The working party must digest a great deal of evidence from voluntary services, medical authorities, professional bodies and all those concerned with alcoholics. I cannot add anything further, except to say that the working party will receive evidence in May and that it has been working very hard.

Mr. Hilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken to provide hostels for methylated spirit drinkers, especially within the area of Greater London.

Mr. Taverne: My right hon. Friend's responsibility is for discharged offenders. Five hostels in Greater London and two in the provinces, providing a total of 71


places for habitual drunken offenders, are in receipt of Home Office grant. They all accept crude spirit drinkers. I know of two other hostels in Greater London and two in the provinces, offering 49 places, which accept offenders who are crude spirit drinkers.

Mr. Hilton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that he accentuates the fact that they accept crude spirit drinkers—not that they actually accept them or deal with the problem? Is he also aware that an official of his Department met my local authority and promised speedy action but that my local authority is becoming disillusioned about this prospect?

Mr. Taverne: I take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is there any risk that the high rate of duty on whisky and other spirits drives people increasingly to drinking methylated spirit?

Mr. Taverne: I should not like to say what the transition process is in these cases.

Parking Restrictions (Bank Holidays)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why, in view of the fact that parking restrictions are not applicable in the London area on Bank Holidays, the police and traffic wardens gave notice of intention of summons to a number of motorists who parked their cars in restricted areas on the statutory declared Bank Holidays of Friday, 15th March and Saturday, 16th March; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Taverne: It would not be proper for me to comment; it is for the chief officer of police concerned to decide whether to bring proceedings and for the courts to settle any question of law that arises.

Mr. Lewis: With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, that is dodging the issue. Is it not a fact that these were declared statutory Bank Holidays and that people thought, quite legitimately, that on Bank Holidays they were permitted to park in these spots, as they did, without being charged and fined? Will he issue an instruction for these notices to be withdrawn, these days having been declared Bank Holidays?

Mr. Taverne: I assure my hon. Friend that I am not dodging the issue. This is

not a matter for me. First, it is not for us to act in place of the courts, and, secondly, it is not for us to give instructions to the police about when to prosecute.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Public Demonstrations (Trafalgar Square and Grosvenor Square)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreigners were permitted entry into this country for the admitted reason of taking part in the demonstration in Trafalgar Square and Grosvenor Square on Sunday, 17th March; and how many of them have now been deported.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportations have taken place as a result of proceedings arising out of the pro-Vietcong demonstrations in Trafalgar Square and Grosvenor Square on 17th March.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who took part in the demonstrations in Grosvenor Square on 17th March came from abroad; where they came from; and whether any deportations have taken place or are under consideration.

Mr. Callaghan: No separate record has been kept of any passengers who may on arrival have declared to an immigration officer their intention of taking part in this demonstration. None of those who did take part have been deported, but some cases are still before the courts and further proceedings may be instituted.

Mr. Digby: Despite our tradition of tolerance, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is resentment against foreigners coming here and creating a cockpit for demonstrations?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. I think that that is a fair statement of the position. I am bound to say that it is very difficult to check what foreign students propose to do when they come here. For example, a large number of them came on an architectural tour, but I am not sure what sort of architecture they were proposing to study.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can the right hon. Gentleman say about how many persons who are liable to deportation on conviction under the aliens or Commonwealth immigrants legislation have been prosecuted and convicted?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. I cannot say how many have yet been prosecuted because the cases are still going on. In fact, the number of people who are known to have arrived for the purpose of this demonstration is surprisingly small, probably not much more than 100.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: If bands of foreigners come here to join in these events, which should be British events only—[Interruption.]—and arm themselves with sticks and other weapons and are violent, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that they should not object to the use of Continental methods such as having the hoses turned on them?

Mr. Callaghan: I would be reluctant to lower the tariff barriers to allow Continental methods to be introduced in this sphere. I am certain that we should—and I do not want to make too much of one demonstration of this sort, major, serious and bad though it was—for the time being continue to rely on our traditional methods.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce amending legislation to improve the control exercised by Ministers over the nationalised boards for which they are responsible.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The hon. Gentleman's Question is too vague the permit of an answer. If, however, he would care to let me or my right hon. Friends with responsibilities for nationalised industries have specific proposals, we would, of course, look at them.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the National Coal Board has said that his responsibilities are not to individual Ministers, who may come and go as the policy changes, but to the nation as a whole? Will he see that heads of nationalised industries who take this view are brought to heel? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

The Prime Minister: The Chairman of the N.C.B. has his duties clearly laid down in the appropriate Statutes and I have no doubt that it will be his desire to carry them out.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is just completing a study which covers precisely the ground of the original Question? Would it not be a good idea to wait and hear what the Select Committee has to say?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I was aware of the likelihood of the Select Committee presenting its report on this matter shortly and we were looking forward to studying it before going further into these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMY (THREATS OF DISRUPTION)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied that the threats to disrupt the economy during the winter have now been averted; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, the winter is now over.

Mr. Marten: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "winter of discontent" for the Government is not over? Could he give an assurance that the Government are plotting some more really purposive action to deal with the plots which these men might carry out in the forthcoming summer?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Question relates to the winter; and I understand that the quotation which the hon. Gentleman was regaling goes on to refer to "this sun of York". This is a continuing problem. I certainly agree that we must be extremely vigilant in these matters. Some of the anxieties which we had in particular industries turned out to go the other way. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, as we have repeatedly told the House, that in certain cases, and particularly in the case of the docks, a very heavy cost was involved, as a result of what happened.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Would the right hon. Gentleman get a member of his staff to get on the hot line to Dudley and relate the great news which has just been disclosed in the Answer to


this Question—or does he think that that would have no effect on the result?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister when he expects his forecast of a 4 per cent. annual increase in industrial production to be reached, and since it is still below the July, 1966, level, what new action he proposes to take.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is mistaken in his premise since both in December and January the seasonally adjusted index of industrial production was above the July, 1966, level, and as I have previously told the House the manufacturing component of that index rose by 2·9 per cent. in the three months November, 1967, to January, 1968, compared with the three preceding months. As to the prospects for total output in 1968–69 I would refer the hon. Member to the Budget Statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir C. Osborne: As the industrial index is still 137 compared with 135 in the crisis year of 1966, that is not a 4 per cent. increase per annum. If the Chancellor's policy is to take £500 million worth of goods from the consumers of this country, will not that reduce industrial production, since the Chancellor cannot compel the foreigner to buy those goods?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of that question, as we have repeatedly said, and as my right hon. Friend said, the rate of increase was extremely slow for a continued period, for the reason mentioned by the hon. Member, but it has started to pick up rather quickly and I have quoted the figure for manufacturing industry. On the point about the Budget, it was very fully debated in this House for several days and my right hon. Friend gave his estimate. He said that to the extent that exports rise, to the extent that they may be expected to rise or opportunities were taken by manufacturers, of course production could rise still further.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD (WORLD PRICE)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister since the sterling rate has fallen below the new parity of 2·40, if he will discuss with the President of the United

States of America the possibility of increasing the world price of gold and so reducing the pressure on both the dollar and sterling.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18th March.

Sir C. Osborne: The Prime Minister must be aware that tomorrow's Stockholm conference will depend largely for success upon co-operation from South Africa and Russia, the two great gold producers. Could he ask those two Governments whether they intend to sell their new gold at the free price, and whether they are still going to use the London market?

The Prime Minister: It is precisely because of the importance of the Stockholm meeting—my right hon. Friend has already left for Stockholm—I did not feel it right to add anything to what was said by my right hon. Friend on 18th March. The hon. Member is, I think, proposing an increase in the world price.

Sir C. Osborne: No, I am not.

The Prime Minister: He asked if I would discuss "the possibility of increasing the world price"—that is the Question—to reduce "pressure on both the dollar and sterling". My right hon. Friend on 18th March stated very clearly why he and we do not feel that that would be the right answer.

Mr. Barnett: While increasing the price of gold might be to our advantage in the short term, would it not be a tragic and arbitrary step in the wrong direction? Would that not lead to a sense of unwarranted optimism? Would my right hon. Friend consider perhaps dropping the S.D.R. scheme and going in for something more ambitious?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware of the unanimous decision taken in Washington, including of course the British delegation with the full support of Her Majesty's Government. That was a decision firmly to reject such proposals and to rebuff speculators who were talking about and gambling on an increase in the price of gold. In regard to Stockholm and with regard to S.D.R.s, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a notable contribution to world agreement last year in his discussions in London and elsewhere. While of course


all of us would like to go a good deal beyond what has been agreed in Rio and elsewhere, it would be a great mistake to throw away what has been achieved in the hope of getting, immediately or at an early stage, something better.

Mr. Tapsell: Does the Prime Minister agree that no fixed price for gold can long be realistic if the major countries, particularly the United States and Britain, do not overcome their inflationary situations?

The Prime Minister: I thought it was a clear indication of the Washington decisions that both countries were expecting to take all possible steps to reduce their overseas deficits. Immediately after that weekend came our Budget with very major steps towards that, and the hon. Member will be aware of the statement by the Government of the United States about steps in the same direction.

Mr. Cant: Should the machinations of the French destroy the future of the S.D.R. system, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are certain allocative and reserves attractions of an increase in the price of gold even though the redistributive effects may not be so fortunate, and suggest to the world authorities that there is no need to panic in this particular respect?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. On the question of the French, my hon. Friend will be aware of the wide, almost universal, support given last year for the special drawing rights scheme. This is still the position as far as the world is concerned. It would not be very productive to say that since the French Government still object to those proposals, we should drop them and have something more imaginative which obviously the French Government would dislike even more. As to panic, the action taken at the Washington conference was the very reverse of panic and showed the determination of the monetary authorities of the gold pool countries to hold the position firm and counter the very dangerous speculation that was going on.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH RURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Mr. Gibson-Watt: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Minister of 
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Wales and the President of the Board of Trade in connection with the working of the Welsh Rural Development Board; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is now considerable opposition in Mid-Wales to this nominated board with compulsory powers? Will he therefore do away with it? Will he look at the terms of reference given to the committee of inquiry which is to sit on 8th April?

The Prime Minister: On the information given to me by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, the gloomy account given by the hon. Member does not seem to be borne out. This is regarded as a very important step forward in Wales. It is very long overdue and I am sorry that the hon. Member did not have a chance to vote for it years ago. As to the inquiry, I will bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people in Mid-Wales have withstood the temptation to make a miserable political issue out of this matter and that they welcome it as a first attempt to inject substantial capital into a debilitated economy?

The Prime Minister: I think my hon. Friend's question shows much more realism than the question asked by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt).

Later—

Mr. Speaker: I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) for failing to see that he was trying to catch my eye on a very Welsh question.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order. Arising from your last comment, Mr. Speaker, am I to take it that the same apology is extended to all English Members when they fail to catch your eye on English Questions?

Mr. Speaker: I can assure the hon. Member that I apologise to all hon. Members from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland if they fail to catch my eye.

Mr. Tinn: Further to that point of order. May I ask whether that apology means that special preference is granted to the hon. Member for Carmarthen over other Welsh Members?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should know that one of the tasks of Mr. Speaker is to protect minorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (DISTRIBUTION OF WORK)

Mr. Moonman: asked the Prime Minister how frequently the distribution and substance of Ministerial portfolios, with particular reference to industrial matters, is reviewed.

The Prime Minister: The distribution of work between Departments is kept under continuous review, Sir.

Mr. Moonman: While appreciating the difficulties involved in that reply, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would agree that it is necessary in modern government, if it is to fulfil its rôle in partnership between Government and industry, to maintain a regular review? At the same time, will he refute the charge that this Government do not understand the facts of industrial life?

The Prime Minister: Distribution of work between Departments is continuously reviewed. My hon. Friend will be aware of the much greater integration of effort so far as consultation between Government Departments and Ministers, on the one hand, and industry—both on a general national basis and individual industries—on the other, and of how much has been achieved in the last three years.

Mr. Heath: Can the Prime Minister say who, if anyone, is in charge of the D.E.A.? Is it to be strengthened or abolished?

The Prime Minister: The position so far as Ministerial responsibility is exactly as last announced to the House concerning the D.E.A. With regard to the future the right hon. Gentleman should take care not to believe all that he reads in the newspapers.

Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister kindly answer the question?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman was incapable of hearing the last time I answered, the position is that

I still have a general charge, with the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs doing the day-to-day work there. With regard to the second part of the question, there is no question of abolishing the Department, and I again commend the right hon. Gentleman not to get too excited about what he reads in the papers.

Sir F. Bennett: Could the Prime Minister inform the House as to who is fulfilling the task of the former Paymaster-General and of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, both of which Ministers were paid full-time previously?

The Prime Minister: Neither of those questions arises out of the Question on the Order Paper. My noble Friend the former Paymaster-General and my right hon. Friend who was then the First Secretary were not charged with industrial duties. In the present situation some of their duties have been reallocated among other non-Departmental Ministers.

Mr. Heffer: To prove that the Government really understand the industrial facts of life, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance this afternoon that any idea of compulsory wages legislation will be dropped?

The Prime Minister: To show that we fully understand the facts of industrial life, and the economic necessities of the nation at this time, the answer is that it will not be dropped.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEVELOPMENT AREAS (UNEMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Bishop: asked the Prime Minister what further action is proposed to deal with the problem of unemployment following his visits to development areas; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Over the past year the Government has more than doubled assistance to the development areas. This massive programme should progressively bring about a steady improvement in their position and indeed, as the House knows, there has for some months past been a more than proportionate fall in unemployment in development area regions.

Mr. Bishop: Although I welcome the improvement in development areas, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether he is


satisfied with the number of export committees set up in factories as anticipated in his speech at Burnley in January?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, but I think there is growing interest in industry—I have visited one or two committees—in joint consultation as a means of exploiting the opportunities available to us. This was a proposal not only for the development areas for industry throughout the country and for exporters and potential exporters throughout the country. As to the development areas, while none of us is satisfied, recent progress means that unemployment in the development areas is lower than it was in mid-1964 in the middle of a pre-election boom.

Mr. Baker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that part of the trouble in the development areas is not unemployment, but depopulation? Can we have an assurance that he will take some action in that respect?

The Prime Minister: These two issues are very closely related one to the other. One reason why we have continued to discriminate between the development areas and many grey areas, even though there are grave problems in the grey areas, has been the heavy impact over many years now of the migration problem from certain development areas. The answer is that any action taken to regenerate these areas will have an effect not only on the unemployment level, but on employment opportunities, and, therefore, will be a disincentive to emigration from the areas, especially—and this is most important of all—among young workers.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (AMALGAMATION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. SHINWELL: To ask the Prime Minister, if he will make a statement on the proposed amalgamation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices.

The Prime Minister: As the House will be aware, I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to supervise the amalgamation of the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office into a single Office for which, when it has been established, he will become responsible. The House will wish to know more about the background to this decision.
The House will recall that the Plowden Committee on Representational Services Overseas questioned, amongst other things, the desirability of continuing to have two separate Offices responsible for relations with Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries. When the Committee reported in December 1963 they considered the moment had not yet come when a merger between the Commonwealth Office and the Foreign Office would be opportune; but they concluded nevertheless that the logic of events pointed towards an ultimate amalgamation.
Since the Committee reported, the Foreign and Commonwealth Services have been united in a single Diplomatic Service. The communications systems and the infrastructure generally have been amalgamated, several joint Departments have been established and there has thus already been a very considerable degree of integration. The time has now come to take the final short and logical step. I hope that it will be possible to put the amalgamation into practical effect by the autumn. One member of the Cabinet, the Secretary of State in charge of the combined Office, will then be responsible for the conduct of both foreign and Commonwealth affairs. The organisation is now being worked out; it will be largely on a geographical basis but with strong functional departments in support. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to bear in mind the importance of making satisfactory arrangements to ensure that the interests of the Dependent Territories will continue to receive close and sympathetic attention.
The amalgamation of the two Offices implies no change in our attitude or approach to the Commonwealth connection. In the new Office the responsible Ministers will attach fully as much weight to the views of other Commonwealth Governments as they have always done. In particular I should like to emphasise that Commonwealth High Commissioners in London will continue to have ready access to me and to other British Ministers and their Departments in exactly the same way as at present.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be general support for telescoping these Departments—and perhaps it might be useful to telescope other Departments to reduce some of the Ministers? Nevertheless, will there not


be an impression as a result of the decision to merge the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office that we will not be so much concerned with our Commonwealth associations and obligations in future? Can my right hon. Friend say which Minister will be responsible for answering questions primarily on the Commonwealth when the merger takes place?

The Prime Minister: Concerning the anxiety of my right hon. Friend about paying less attention to Commonwealth countries and specifically Commonwealth matters in future, I tried to deal with that in my original Answer. My right hon. Friend will be aware that no other Commonwealth Government now has one department dealing just with Commonwealth relations. A number of Commonwealth Governments in the past, when I have discussed it with them, have felt that it was inevitable we should make this change and, I think, were ready to welcome it.
Concerning the second part of my right hon. Friend's question, there will be one Secretary of State for the combined Department. What its name will be I am not yet in a position to say. I shall be interested to hear the views of right hon. and hon. Members, but it will not be the Department of External Affairs or anything like that. There will be one Secretary of State and he, together with his junior Ministers, will answer Questions of a specifically Commonwealth character as well as questions about foreign countries.

Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that this is a step of major importance in the organisation of the machinery of Government, and we shall want to consider the details of the proposals which will presumably be put before the House? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he visualises that this will mean a considerable increase in the burden on the Prime Minister in carrying on communications and contacts with the Prime Ministers of Commonwealth Governments, replacing to a considerable extent what was formerly done by the Commonwealth Secretary?

The Prime Minister: I agree that this is a major step forward both for overseas relationships and, as the right hon.

Gentleman said, in the machinery of Government. I noted last week the desire expressed by him, as well as by MN right hon. Friend, that a statement should be made to the House. This has been done.
As to communications with Heads of Government within the Commonwealth, as he said, this is frequently done by the Commonwealth Secretary. In the future this will be the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary, who will be in charge of the combined Department, under whatever title he then has. Clearly, as now, there are many occasions when I have to communicate with Heads of Government, foreign or Commonwealth, and this will continue.

Mr. George Brown: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite plain that this is no new decision? In fact, the present Commonwealth Secretary and myself made a recommendation to him some time ago to speed up the decision already made to combine the two Departments in terms of Ministers. Will my right hon. Friend also make it clear that the services are already combined? Therefore, the anxieties of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) do not arise. The reason for doing it is clearly to avoid having Ministerial arguments and, therefore, encouraging civil servants to encourage Ministerial arguments. It is obviously the most sensible thing to do and the sooner we do it the better.

The Prime Minister: I cannot recall any case of disharmony or argument between my right hon. Friend and the Commonwealth Secretary, so with that part of his question I cannot express agreement. I am in full agreement with the rest of the points made in his question. This was originally a projected recommendation of the Plowden Committee. It has been considered by all Governments and all Prime Ministers since that time. I can certainly confirm that I discussed this with my right hon. Friend only a few weeks ago, and I know that this is his view. Obviously it will have very great advantages both in Whitehall and in our relationships with overseas countries.

Mr. Maudling: Is the Prime Minister aware that there may from time to time be a conflict between the claims of foreign policy and the claims of our policy towards dependent territories? Examples of such a possibility have been


the position as regards Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. Is it satisfactory that in future these disputes will be resolved at Departmental level rather than be resolved at Cabinet level with full representation of both points of view?

The Prime Minister: The question of which matters ought to go to the Cabinet or important Cabinet committees does not depend on whether there is one Department or two involved. There are many questions, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember from his experience, which require Cabinet approval even though they may come forward on the initiative of a single Department. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one or two cases where a different point of view might arise as between Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs interests. The problems last year over Hong Kong were a similar case in point. The subject which we debated yesterday, as I tried to explain to the House, is one on which there is great world interest quite apart from our dependent territory interest as regards Rhodesia.
It will be much better when a single Minister is able to assemble all the issues for decision and, where necessary, consult his colleagues.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has long been an opinion among students of foreign affairs that the Foreign Minister does not run the Foreign Office but the Foreign Office runs the Minister? Is it not time to correct this situation by having a Specialist Committee on foreign affairs which would give the House a greater opportunity to watch matters?

The Prime Minister: In the suspicion which he has voiced, my hon. Friend, most unusually for him, is living in the long distant past.

Mr. Fisher: Has the Prime Minister fully considered the enormous burden of work which will fall on one man? Both these jobs have been full-time jobs in the past. Second, will he recommend to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that there should continue to be two separate days allotted for Parliamentary Questions, as otherwise hon. Members will not be able to put down the questions they want to the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office?

The Prime Minister: First, the matter of Parliamentary Questions. I think that it will be for the convenience of the House that, until the amalgamation is complete, during which time we shall in any case have two Secretaries of State responsible for the two areas, Questions should continue as at present. After the amalgamation, it will, I think, be for the greater convenience of the House if they are amalgamated. It is often difficult to know exactly which Department should take Questions in certain cases. As to the number of days, this is a matter for discussion with my right hon. Friend.
I agree that the burden falling on the Secretary of State will be considerable. We are here continuing a process which began under our predecessors in relation to the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office is now amalgamated with the Commonwealth Office, and now the combined Department will be amalgamated with the Foreign Office. This will create a burden. On the other hand, the Secretary of State will be responsible for the general conduct of our overseas relations; this will create considerable economies and be more likely to lead to the right answer in very difficult cases.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is it not most important that the various member countries of the Commonwealth should not feel disparaged or alienated by this change? Has my right hon. Friend consulted other members of the Commonwealth about it? If so, which, and with what result?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; there was no specific consultation. It is entirely a matter of our own organisation, but, as I said, I have discussed it with a considerable number of Commonwealth Heads of Government, and we are following their practice. I do not feel that this country is in the slightest degree disparaged if, for example, when we are dealing with Canada, Mr. Paul Martin is able to speak as regards both Canada's foreign relations and its Commonwealth relations.

Mr. David Steel: We welcome this decision on general grounds, but could the Prime Minister add to the general welcome which it might receive by indicating what economies in staff will result from the amalgamation of the two Ministries?

The Prime Minister: Already, there has been some evidence of greater efficiency in working because of the matter I referred to, the pooling of services. This is increasing all the time. Naturally, we shall look for greater efficiency and economies. There is in addition the inquiry which we are making into the question of staffing of overseas posts. Hon. Members have often stressed that in the present world we might perhaps review these things, although all of us, I think, would wish to see the greatest possible strengthening both overseas and in the new combined office of representation on matters dealing with the extension of our trade overseas.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Has consideration been given, or will it be given, to any change in the title of High Commissioner, either here or in the overseas territories?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and for a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. It does not arise out of the amalgamation in any sense, because, as I have said, practically every Commonwealth country has a combined Ministry responsible for Commonwealth and overseas affairs. All of them, or very nearly all, have High Commissioners here.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Dr. Winstanley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Answer to Question No. 54 for Written Answer concerning nurses' pay has just been given orally to the Press, may I ask whether the Minister of Health has sought leave to give that Answer to the House, and, if not, whether it would be in order if he did seek such leave?

Mr. Speaker: The factual answer is that the Minister of Health has not sought leave to answer the Question. If he had done so, he would have had the leave of Mr. Speaker and, I think, of the House.

Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since it was my Question, may I say that I have already received the Written Answer, about a quarter of an hour ago, and I understand that the Report is in the Vote Office.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 1ST APRIL—Remaining stages of the Health Services and Public Health Bill.

Motions relating to the Double Taxation Orders on Brazil, British Honduras, British Solomon Islands Protectorate, Falkland Islands, Monserrat, and Virgin Islands, and to the Miscellaneous Fees (Variation) Order.

At 7 o'clock, Opposed Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

TUESDAY, 2ND APRIL—Second Reading of the Family Allowances and National Insurance (No. 2) Bill.

Motion on the London Transport Board (Borrowing Powers) Order.

WEDNESDAY, 3RD APRIL—Remaining stages of the Industrial Expansion Bill.

Second Reading of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Amendment Bill.

THURSDAY, 4TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Air Corporations Bill.

Motions on the Redundancy Fund (Advances out of the National Loans Fund) Order and the Anti-Dumping Duty Order.

FRIDAY, 5TH APRIL—Private Member's Bills.

MONDAY, 8TH APRIL—Supply (18th Allotted Day):

There will be a debate on a Motion to take note of the 11th Report from the Estimates Committee, Session 1966–67, and of the 5th Special Report from the Estimates Committee, Session 1967–68, on Prisons, Borstals and Detention Centres.

Mr. Heath: First, is the Leader of the House aware that this is the first time for nine years when, at the end of March, the forces have been in a state of uncertainty about their pay for the coming year? When will a statement be made about the future of forces' pay? Second, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that


there is great concern in Scotland because the repair of the gale damage is not proceeding very quickly? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland makes a progress report which we can debate before the House rises for Easter?

Mr. Crossman: I shall bring the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about forces' pay to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. As regards the storm damage in Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a further statement next week on the progress being made.

Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange for a debate in which we can discuss the lack of time for ordinary back benchers, bearing in mind that in the debate on Rhodesia yesterday on our side only two non-Privy Councillors were called? Why is it not possible for a debate to be extended by two hours on a very controversial subject, as the subject yesterday was, if we are not to have a two-day debate?

Mr. Crossman: I think that this is a question about which it is easier to be wise after the event. If there had been a demand from the House to extend the debate, I should, as always, have considered that demand; but it was not made in time to make the change.

Earl of Dalkeith: Will the statement to be made next week concern urban gale damage or forestry damage, or both?

Mr. Crossman: I gather that my right hon. Friend intends to make a full progress report on both aspects, repair and the actual damage.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: When will my right hon. Friend be able to arrange for a debate on Vietnam?

Mr. Crossman: I must continue to say that there is a great shortage of Government time at this time of the year. I cannot give any assurance before the Easter Recess. I noticed that at a time this week when private Members had a very long period in which they could have chosen this as a topic for debate not a single hon. Member selected it.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government's failure yet again to bring forward a debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, after they had promised that there would be one before the end of March, is a cause of

great disappointment to hon. Members on both sides of the House and indicates to the country that perhaps the Select Committees are not as important as the Leader of the House has always made out?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman is misjudging my motives about the debate. I have been in close contact with the Chairman of the Committee and with the two Ministers involved about the timing. The question is really a simple one of whether we want to debate the Select Committee's Report with or without the statements from the two Ministries relevant to the subject. I had hoped to wait until the two Ministries were ready. It has taken longer than I had expected, and I think on reflection that I might have chosen a date to debate the Report some weeks ago if I had known how long they would take. I am now hopeful that we shall get the two coinciding after the Recess.

Mr. E. Rowlands: When shall we be able to debate the very important White Paper on local government reorganisation in Wales?

Mr. Crossman: It has been out for some time. We have all studied it with close attention, but I cannot see any chance of debating it next week.

Mr. Iremonger: Does the Leader of the House expect us to have the remaining stages of the Countryside Bill before Easter?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mendelson: With reference to the proposed debate on Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend recall that several other members of the Administration concerned with the arrangement of business have expressed the view in the past that it is too important a subject to be taken on a Private Member's Motion on a private Members' day? Will he, therefore, accept the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) that we need to have an urgent debate on this very important subject in the Government's time?

Mr. Crossman: I am bound on some day before the Easter Recess to have a debate on the Adjournment for Easter, and there, in Government time, there could be an opportunity.

Mr. Marten: Is the Leader of the House aware that in my Vote this morning I got an order of Questions implying that we might be coming back a day early? Is that so?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware of a certain discrepancy between the statement I made and the roster. I will admit that I prudently made the roster on the assumption that I might not be able to keep to my hope that we should come back on a Tuesday. My hope is still strong, and if the hon. Gentleman does not press me too hard I might keep to the Tuesday and amend the roster.

Mr. Shinwell: May I revert to the request for a debate on Vietnam? I express no opinion on the merits of the question, but if a substantial body of hon. Members on either side of the House asks for a debate on an important international topic about which there is concern and that is resisted by the Executive, does not that justify the criticism that Members of Parliament have practically no influence on it?

Mr. Crossman: That is too wide a conclusion to draw from such a narrow premise. It would justify criticism that the Executive is concerned to get its own business through and perhaps it might legitimately be said that the Executive was too eager to get its business through. But I do not think that I would draw the very wide conclusions about the impotence of back benchers from this case.

Mr. Emery: Does the Leader of the House realise that since the debate on the South-West Economic Planning Council's Report on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Tuesday, the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Council has resigned because of the Government's inactivity in dealing with the recommendations in the Report? As the Chairman has already signified that he is leaving in April, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs makes a statement on the matter next week?

Mr. Crossman: I would not accept all the implications of the question. This will be a demonstration that something can be achieved by private Members if they take two or three hours on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I shall certainly bring the hon. Gentleman's request to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Orme: Will my right hon. Friend give the House more information on the business relating to the National Insurance amendments? Is it next week that legislation on the three abolished days is being introduced?

Mr. Crossman: I said that on Tuesday we should have the Second Reading of the Family Allowances and National Insurance (No. 2) Bill. That is the Bill which will contain a Clause relating to the subject in which my hon. Friend is interested. We shall not be doing the concluding stages until the following week, when I hope to conclude the Bill before the Easter Recess.

Sir R. Russell: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is now nearly three years since the Littlewood Committee made recommendations about experiments on living animals? When does the Home Secretary propose to introduce legislation to implement the Report?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that long delay. I must acquaint myself in more detail with the matter before I can adequately reply to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he could ask me again next week.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On the subject of Vietnam, does my right hon. Friend recognise that the Executive, with the connivance of the Opposition Front Bench, has escaped from the control of the Legislature? There can be no solution to the problem which does not involve a Motion and Division which will have the effect of bringing the Executive once again within that control. The suggestions of odd debates at different times are not a satisfactory answer to the question.

Mr. Crossman: It is not for me to advise my hon. Friends behind me on how to use their power as back-benchers to bring pressure on the Executive. That is something of which I have had experience in the past, but I do not want to reflect on that at the moment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the Leader of the House agree, on reflection, that a Motion on the Adjournment for Easter, on which there is a narrow debate, is an inadequate occasion for the discussion of a great subject like Vietnam? Having heard both sides, will he give new consideration to giving Government time?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us that the Opposition also have opportunities for giving time for debate on Vietnam.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a widespread impression in Scotland that the Standard Time Bill is an accomplished fact, an impression encouraged by statements by Government agencies? In the light of this, can he say ensure that the Committee stage of the Bill, which has been hanging fire for a very long time without being started, can be expedited?

Mr. Crossman: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows already from a previous announcement why there has been some delay, and I hope that he appreciates that the reason is one which should be pleasant to the people of Scotland.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that the House will want to know in reasonable time how he proposes to allocate the days which he will gain by sending the Finance Bill upstairs') May we have an assurance that a fair proportion of the allocation will be put at the disposal of the Opposition, and that it will not all be taken up by this miserable Government?

Mr. Crossman: I would not give any such assurance, because we have never made the suggestion, that we should increase the number of Supply Days because of the time we gain through the Finance Bill's going upstairs, if that is what the hon. Lady means. I am afraid that fate or Providence takes a good deal of the time away from me by compelling us to discuss certain subjects: we also have subjects proposed by hon. Members opposite. I cannot give an assurance now, so far in advance of the Whitsun Recess, on how we shall be occupying ourselves in June and July.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the Leader of the House represent to the Secretary of State for Scotland, before his right hon. Friend makes the statement on the gale damage to which we all look forward, that many farmers and horticulturists in Scotland have suffered grievous losses as a consequence of the hurricane, and that he should not continue with his blunt refusal to provide any help to them?

Mr. Crossman: I should have thought that a question entirely about the substance of the debate and not about its timing.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE

3.59 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): I beg to move,
That the Civil Defence Corps (Revocation) Regulations 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House to consider at the same time the second Order:
That the Civil Defence Corps (Scotland) Revocation Regulations 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.

Mr. Ennals: I understand that it is the wish of the Opposition that we should discuss these Regulations together first before proceeding to the Civil Defence (Fire Services) Regulations.
I hope that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) will not be offended if to avoid repetition I do not mention their Scottish counterpart when I refer to the Regulations affecting England and Wales; the same arguments apply to both sets of Regulations. However, if there are any particularly Scottish points arising, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be pleased to deal with them in winding up.
Having, I hope, avoided the obvious danger of giving rise to ill-feeling among my Scottish friends, I come now to the Regulations proper. In his speech in the House on 29th February, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that it was the Government's intention to disband the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service on 31st March next, and he explained that this would require the revocation of the 3ivil Defence Corps Regulations, 1949, an amendment to the Civil Defence (Fire Service) Regulations, 1949—to which we shall come later—and comparable action in relation to the Scottish Regulations. The purpose of the Regulations is to relieve local authorities of their statutory obligation to maintain these forces. This is the only way to ensure that the savings, which the Government had decided are necessary, can be achieved.
The Civil Defence Corps was established in 1949 primarily to assist local authorities to perform the civil defence functions placed upon them by Regulations made under Civil Defence Act, 1948. The Corps is a national body, established by a Warrant signed by the Secretary of State, but it is administered locally. Under the Civil Defence Corps Regulations, 1949, it is the duty of county, county borough and London borough councils, and certain other specified authorities, to organise divisions of the Corps.
The active strength of the Corps in Great Britain as a whole was 58,700 in September, 1967, and in addition there were 10,900 fully trained members on reserve. Hon. Members may have noticed the special mention of Scunthorpe in the draft Regulations. Scunthorpe did not become a Corps authority until 1951, when, at its own request, it was added to authorities listed in the Schedule to the 1949 Regulations, and, therefore, needs to be separately included in the revoking Regulations.
The background to the Government's decision to reduce the level of expenditure on civil defence which, in turn, has made necessary the disbandment of the volunteer forces, was very fully discussed during our debate on 29th February. When we spoke in that debate, the Home Secretary and I made it quite clear that the decision to take the painful course of disbanding the voluntary organisations became inescapable once the Government had decided that substantial economies in civil defence expenditure had to be achieved. I explained to the House that, by the actions we are taking, we shall achieve expenditure reductions to the tune of £20 million in 1969–70 and subsequently though not, of course, this year. The cost of the volunteer organisations was a substantial proportion of the cost of our total civil defence programme.
A further reduction in the size of the Civil Defence Corps would not have been practicable because the reductions we made in December, 1966, when the Corps was reorganised, were the largest that could be made consistent with an intention to keep the volunteer forces alive. Any further reduction in their size or capability would have seriously pre-

judiced their existence as viable forces. There was no more pruning which could be done.
Nor would it have been possible to make any substantial economies by taking advantage of the many sincere offers which we have received from the volunteers themselves to serve without bounty or other direct payment. As I have already explained to the House, these payments amount to less than 10 per cent. of the total cost of the two services. It is the cost of administration, including the salaries of full-time local authority employees, and the expense resulting from the use of premises rather than direct payments to the volunteers which make up the bulk of the cost.
The maintenance of any standing body, even if it consists, like the civil defence force of volunteers, necessarily costs a good deal of money. It involves continuous rather than "once for all" expenditure. Training is essential if a force is to be any good and training cannot be once for all. If the force is to be effective, there must be a constant influx of new members, constant refresher courses for existing members as well as regular training sessions. This cannot be carried on without spending more money than can be afforded, if we are to achieve the necessary savings in public expenditure which the economic situation demands.
We also made it clear in the debate that the decision to disband the volunteer forces, forced upon us by economic necessity, was taken with reluctance and genuine regret. We paid tribute to the enthusiasm, devotion and sense of public duty shown by the volunteers in the past—the qualities they have displayed not only in training sessions and exercises, but sometimes also at the scenes of peacetime disasters. The nation has reason to be truly grateful for the work of the volunteers who have given their energy and time and deserve an honourable place among those who have served their country well, especially in times when the danger of nuclear war seemed much greater than it does today.
That is the background to the decision. I want now to deal with the consequences of the decision for the volunteers themselves and the country as a whole. First, if Parliament approves the draft Regulations before the House today the volunteer forces will cease to exist on 31st


March, 1968. The actual arrangements for disbandment are in the hands of the Corps authorities who have planned ceremonies and stand-down parades of various kinds. No doubt tributes at local level will then be paid to the work of these men and women.
The House may wish to know about arrangements for the payment of bounty. Bounty payments were introduced in 1962 and were intended as a tangible recognition of the firm obligations which volunteers were then required to undertake for the first time. Under the present arrangements it is payable to members twelve months after they join the Corps provided that they have completed a course of training, passed a test and entered Class A of the Corps.
Members of Class A undertake to serve for three years and to undergo a minimum of 40 hours' training each year. Since January, 1967, service as a recruit has counted in the twelve month qualifying period for bounty. At the end of each of the three years they receive payments of £10, £12 or £15 according to rank. The arrangements we have made will mean that any member of the Corps whose bounty year is interrupted by disbandment—that means this week—will be paid the full amount of the bounty to which he would have been entitled in that year in the normal course. The only proviso is that he should have done some training since the start of the bounty year and that his Corps authority should be satisfied that he would have completed the year.
There have been many suggestions that the former members of the Civil Defence Corps might maintain some voluntary activity after the Corps itself has been disbanded. Most of these suggestions have come from the volunteers themselves and I should say at once how much I admire the sense of public spirit which has inspired them. It may be possible for some continued activity to be maintained on a voluntary basis—that is, not involving any financial assistance from the Exchequer. Groups of volunteers may continue to meet for social purposes, and to keep alive certain elements of civil defence knowledge not involving elaborate training. Since we shall not be able to provide Exchequer assistance for this purpose I am reluctant to offer positive encouragement to something that is

bound to cost money. If groups of Corps members are thinking of such informal activity, they may wish to pursue the question of possible accommodation with their own local authority.
I have more serious misgivings about suggestions that the disbanded volunteers should act as a civil emergency corps involving some form of rescue operation. For this work volunteers have to keep in regular training with properly maintained equipment, and unless they are kept in practice they could be a danger to themselves as well as to those they were trying to help. If, on the other hand, we were to provide the financial assistance for the proper training that would be required for such an emergency corps, then we shall frustrate our efforts to get the economies which the Government has decided that we must achieve.
Moreover, the country is not without resources now to deal with civil disasters. In any disaster the main burden falls on the regular police, fire and medical services, sometimes with the help of the Armed Forces, all of whom are all well equipped to deal with it. It is certainly true that the civil defence voluntary organisations have readily come forward when disasters have occurred and that the Government and the country have good reason to be grateful for their help.
But all the major disasters of recent times have emphasised the need for expert advice in different professional techniques before engaging the forces best able to give it effect and the main value of the Civil Defence Corps units has been as a support to the professional forces already engaged.
The Home Office has always been ready to send civil defence equipment to scenes of disaster and we are ready to continue to do so. Moreover, assistance has also been given by other voluntary organisations who cover part of the same field, such as the British Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the W.R.V.S.

Sir Frank Pearson: When the Home Office sends this equipment to the scene of a disaster, who will man it?

Mr. Ennals: It depends upon what the requirements are. It may be that the


full-time police or fire services may need such equipment. It might mean that there was a call from a fire brigade for some of the supplementary equipment previously held by the A.F.S. This will be held in care and maintenance, and I give the assurance that if there is that call the Home Office will be only too anxious to respond.
I know that some members of the Civil Defence Corps have already joined or have expressed an intention to join one of these voluntary organisations, and I feel that there may be many others who will see in membership of one of these bodies which devote special attention to peacetime accidents, an opportunity of continuing to serve their community. There is quite a lot to be said in favour of volunteers joining as civil defence groups, if that is possible, in order to maintain personal associations within the larger framework of the voluntary aid societies. I know that is in the minds of some people who have written about this. The precise arrangements had best be left for direct discussions between members of the Corps or its association on the one hand and the British Red Cross or the St. John Ambulance Brigade on the other.
I ought to try to indicate what the nation has lost by reason of the disbandment of the Civil Defence Corps. It must be accepted that there has been a loss, but I want to put it in its perspective, particularly since there has been a great deal of quite unjustified exaggeration which can only lead to growing alarm and despondency. We shall now be less ready to face a nuclear attack at short notice than we were before. For years planning has been on the basis that it might be necessary to put the country on a war-footing in a matter of a few days and, in order to achieve this, it was necessary to have a large number of people continuously trained and exercised. These were provided by the civil defence volunteer services.
But, as the Home Secretary explained on February 29, there are good reasons to believe that we do not now need to think on such a short time-scale. There has been a gradual but undeniable improvement in relations between the great nuclear powers over the past few years. Whilst it would be foolish to suggest

that there is no possibility of this situation deteriorating, we do not believe that such a deterioration would happen overnight or even over a few days. Moreover this state of almost immediate readiness had its price—over £6 million for the Civil Defence Corps alone. We had to consider whether we were justified in continuing to spend this money. We concluded that not only in the present internal circumstances, but especially in present economic circumstances, we were not justified.
We have frequently heard the suggestion that, by disbanding the volunteer services, we are abandoning all civil defence preparations.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ennals: Hon. Gentlemen who say "Hear, hear" either know that it is not so or have not troubled to find out. This is just not so. The volunteers were certainly a most valuable part of our civil defence preparations, but they were only a part of civil defence in the sense in which that term is normally used.

Mr. John Farr: Ninety-nine per cent.

Mr. Ennals: Civil defence really means all civil defence measures by civilian organisations, or all measures to enable the whole civilian organisations of the country to prepare for the dreadful consequences of nuclear warfare.
It is unreasonable for the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), who interrupted from a seated position, to suggest that the volunteer forces were 99 per cent. of it. He is greatly, and unfairly, underestimating the contribution made, not only by the regular full-time forces, but by those who will continue with the planning to face a challenge, if it came, under the new arrangements. Most countries have no civil defence volunteer services. The majority of European countries do not have them, and it has never been suggested in those countries that there is no civil defence.

Sir David Renton: Those countries which do not have volunteer services have complusory services, do they not?

Mr. Ennals: They have compulsory services, but they do not necessarily have conscription services. Often responsibility


falls, as it does in this country, heavily on the regular forces such as the police, fire and medical services. It is quite wrong to assume that all the other countries of Europe conduct their civil defence on a basis of conscription.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: Would the hon. Gentleman say which countries in Europe require National Servicemen to undergo civil defence training? Can he tell us that so that we can see the whole picture?

Mr. Ennals: I will not run through the list of the 23 countries in Europe to answer the hon. Gentleman. The pattern varies from country to country. He will know the truth in my statement that most civil defence preparations in Europe are not based on the sort of voluntary civil contribution made in this country.
We shall be retaining the civil defence control system and its communications, and the warning and monitoring organisation. The regular police and fire services are, retaining their war plans and a certain amount of planning and training will be continued to preserve the skills and techniques which have already been developed. We are keeping extensive stockpiles of equipment—radiac instruments and wireless sets—and stores such as food, oil and medical supplies, so that we can raise the level of our preparations fairly quickly, should the need arise.
As well as the services of the other voluntary organisations which will still be available, the country will also still have the benefit of the very considerable resources of the local authorities themselves.
Local authorities will continue to have the responsibility in war of carrying on the essential services which are their responsibility in peacetime, as well as some responsibilities for which there is no peacetime counterpart. We are making plans to preserve in local authorities a basic knowledge of the facts about nuclear warfare which will enable them to help the survivors of an attack to continue to live. We in the Home Office, and other Government Departments, too, will continue to provide local authorities with support and guidance in civil defence matters. I might add that a further circular of guidance to local

authorities will be dispatched if these Regulations are approved today.
One point on which concern has been expressed is the preservation of essential scientific knowledge, particularly in relation to radioactive fall-out, so that the proper advice can be given should the need arise. While I am not in a position to give detailed information at this stage because the Home Office intend to pursue this matter further with the regional scientific advisers and with the local authorities, I can say that the broad intention is to retain on a voluntary basis the most valuable assistance previously supplied by regional scientific advisers and regional scientific training officers, most of whom are on the staff of the universities, and that, in addition, it is hoped to keep a small nucleus of scientific knowledge among a few of the permanent staff of each local authority—people such as science teachers, who have already had the basic training formerly given to scientific intelligence officers in the Civil Defence Corps. They will be kept up to date by an occasional course at the Home Office civil defence training school and by the circulation of information about more recent developments.
I hope that I have said enough to indicate that by disbanding the Civil Defence Corps we are not, as some hon. Gentlemen have suggested, abandoning civil defence planning and preparations, nor are we placing the nation in jeopardy. What we have done is to take a new look at all the circumstances, the level of public expenditure, the nature of the risk, and the state of the economy, and we have struck a balance. I believe that the balance is a sensible and responsible one and I ask the House to approve these draft Regulations.

4.25 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I would never have believed that any Minister could bring himself to make such a speech as the one we have just heard. It was so misleading that it misled nobody—certainly nobody who knows anything about the subiect—and I do not think it could have misled many others either.
The hon. Gentleman has made it quite plain that what he calls "economic necessity" is the sole reason for the


decisions which the Government have taken. He has made it abundantly plain, too, that strategic and life-saving conditions were ignored for reasons of what he calls "economic necessity". I shall have to deal with this further in due course.

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I did not say that, and he knows that I did not say it. It is perfectly clear. I said that we assessed both the international situation and the risks, together with the economic situation. If, faced with our present economic situation, we were also faced with a much more dangerous world situation with the prospect and likelihood of a nuclear war, then of course the Government would not have taken the decision it did. All these considerations, and I said so, were put into the balance in taking the decision.

Mr. Speaker: An intervention cannot be a second speech.

Sir D. Renton: I do not wish to make a lengthy reply to that intervention, but HANSARD will reveal, of course, what the hon. Gentleman said, and among the things he said was that the disbanding of the Civil Defence Corps would mean that this country would be "less ready to face a nuclear attack than before." I shall show—I hope quite conclusively—that what we shall be left with will be no preparedness worth anything whatsoever.
Ever since the Prime Minister announced on 16th January that the Government had decided to disband the Civil Defence Corps and to put civil defence on a care and maintenance basis there has been despair among not only volunteers but also the Corps authorities, the local authorities. But there has also been dismay among many millions of people who were not taking part in civil defence. Those people feel that there should be some effective preparation for minimising the effects of war, whether conventional or nuclear. Until 16th January the Government thought so, too, and they said it was essential to pay the modest premium, which, for all local authority expenditure, including the cost of the Civil Defence Corps, come to only £8 million out of a total budget of

£10,000 million, of which over £2,000 million is spent on defence. That is the position.
The Civil Defence Corps was formed nearly 20 years ago. As the hon. Gentleman and others have rightly said, its members have given devoted service, and a tribute has often been paid to them for their valuable, vital, voluntary service. It is worth reflecting that only a little over 1 per cent. of the population are engaged in this voluntary work and that they are modest, earnest people who are not the sort to shout their own wares, but have just got on with a necessary and not always very exciting job because they thought it was good insurance, as successive governments had told them it was, to do this work. Now, only three days before the Corps is to be disbanded, Parliament is asked to affirm these Regulations. In spite of the fact that we were told as long ago as 16th January, I feel bound to say that there has been indecent haste by the Government in this matter and that that haste causes confusion and betrays an offhand attitude to volunteers, to local authorities and to Parliament.
We have learned from the Press that the TAVR III may be reprieved. That would be splendid news and, if it is to be reprieved, why not reprieve the Civil Defence Corps as well? But I suppose we are to wait until after these Regulations are out of the way and the Civil Defence Corps is disbanded before any announcement is made about TAVR III.
On 8th March the Home Secretary published Civil Defence Circular No. 4 of 1968, and paragraph 5 said that members of the Civil Defence Corps should be allowed to keep their uniforms, and that they should be so informed. But they were advised that badges of rank should be stripped off. I hope I am not being ungenerous, but it seems to me that the Home Secretary assumes that volunteers are going to treat their uniforms as gardening clothes. It is not even suggested that the badges of rank should be kept for sewing on again in a national emergency. I think that in view of the splendid willingness expressed by volunteers all over the country to continue their training after disbandment without bounty it is hardly credible that they should be given such a snub as this.


Surely the right instructions to go in that circular should have been something like this:
Volunteers should be asked to keep their uniforms proudly ready for an emergency and permission is given to wear them when taking part in training activities organised informally after disbandment.
If something like that had been said it would have been much more appropriate in the sad circumstances of this matter.
Paragraph 6 of that Circular No. 4 says this:
Further guidance will be issued about the effect of these formal instruments
that is, the Regulations we are discussing today—
once the Parliamentary processes are completed.
Presumably that further guidance is already prepared and will be sent out tomorrow, although I hope that some of the things said in this debate will be borne in mind. However, that further guidance can reach local authorities only when it is too late to retrieve the chaotic situation which the Government have created.
Why do I use the word "chaotic"? The broad background to the Regulations is this. At present, we have a well-manned expert staff at the Home Office, and at the Staff College at Sunningdale, and in the three training centres—one in Scotland and two in England. The Home Office, with the help of those people, is ready to form a chain of emergency control in the event of attack. That involves two things: a chain of emergency government of all kinds, and a chain of communication for passing information about fall-out.
May I say this about fall-out? As the House may remember, I have had considerable contact with civil defence over the years, and it has always seemed to me that, as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) never ceases to remind us, there is no hope of saving oneself from a direct hit by a nuclear bomb. Nobody ever thought that there was. The same applies to a small explosive bomb. But the hope of saving millions of lives lies in protecting people against fall-out if we can give sufficient warning of it and if they and others are trained to help them survive from fallout. It is, therefore, in that respect that

the chain of emergency control which has been established is important.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does not the right hon. and learned Member recall that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said that there would be no survival from fall-out or anything else?

Sir D. Renton: My right hon. and learned Friend did not say that, or anything like it.

Mr. Jenkins: I will quote the exact words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said at c. 1650 of HANSARD for 4th March, 1965: "…we would not survive". That is what that means.

Sir D. Renton: On a previous occasion the hon. Member for Putney was challenged when he quoted and misunderstood what my right hon. and learned Friend said. I do not propose to go over all that again. It is already in HANSARD.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Too many people want to join in the debate simultaneously. It is unusual.

Sir D. Renton: It might be best if I were to continue briefly to describe what civil defence consists of now and what it will consist of from All Fool's Day onwards.
The Home Office is at the peak of the chain of emergency control in the event of attack. Under the Home Office there are the regional headquarters and the sub-regional headquarters, with expert staff, mostly situated in purpose-built control premises. There are the corps authorities at county council and county borough council level which organise the chain of control right down to contact with people in every village and street.
Under the reorganisation which the Government carried out only a year ago, the corps authorities are required to ensure that the chain of control goes down through borough councils and district councils. Most of the manpower at the base of the pyramid is provided by the Civil Defence Corps. This setup did not cost very much. It has often been referred to by Government spokesmen as a modest and essential premium.
The Under-Secretary of State said that we were not abandoning all the civil defence services. Let us test that and see what is left. The House may be surprised to learn that all that will be left will be this. The Home Office staff will be halved and, therefore, severely truncated. The Staff College will have gone and so will two of the training centres. The regional and sub-regional staffs will have been dismissed—and this is a most serious break in the chain of control, because it means that the Home Office and the Scottish Office will have to deal direct with a multitude of local authorities instead of having the present administrative pyramid.
The local authorities will be required to continue with emergency planning but will be deprived of the means to do so, as I shall show. The Civil Defence Corps is to be disbanded and with it will go, unless something is done quickly, a vast amount of expert knowledge and proficiency. In particular, what is to happen to the scientific intelligence officers, who are absolutely key people? When the fall-out information is relayed down through the Royal Observer Corps, it is for the scientific intelligence officers to interpret it to the people on the ground. In an emergency, it would be vital to get the scientific intelligence officers quickly back in position, because without them the whole system breaks down. They are not very numerous, but, like everybody else, they are being disbanded. We should be told that an attempt will be made to keep in touch with these vital specialists.
That is the dismal background to these Regulations. I suggest that we should not affirm them. We should however be assured of three things, at the very least: first, that the Government will let the local authorities have the means to carry out their statutory responsibilities, which will remain; secondly, that the Government will encourage, and do nothing more to discourage, volunteers from carrying on training on an informal basis thirdly, that the Government will allow local authorities to provide reasonable facilities to volunteers who wish to continue training in that way.
The statutory obligations of local authorities will remain. In Circular 2 this year, the Government said that

…emergency planning should continue at the minimum level needed to enable more active preparations to be resumed if necessary without too much loss of ground.
To enable that to be done, the Circular said that
…the gross amount of local authority expenditure on civil defence is to be reduced from the present £8 million a year to about £1 million.
That means £1 million a year. But it now transpires that they will not be allowed to spend anything like £1 million a year, which anyway would not be anything like enough. I understand that the sum which they will be allowed to spend is only £480,000 for all corps authorities. The regional officers have already been to see the corps authorities about this. In practice, there will be only between £1,500 and £4,500 for each authority, according to its size. I understand that Birmingham, which has a population of over 1 million, will be allowed to spend only £4,500 for its emergency planning work. The valiant people of Coventry, with such unhappy memories of enemy attack, will be allowed to spend only £2,000. It is quite disgraceful.
Let me tell the House that the statutory responsibility of local authorities for emergency planning will involve four things. First, they will have to ensure that planning for each level of control, down to control post level, is prepared and maintained. That is the War Book planning. Secondly, they will have to coordinate their own departments' emergency plans with the plans of the police service, the fire services, the Armed Forces and public utilities especially water supply, electricity and gas, and with the plans of the voluntary aid societies. Thirdly, they have to make plans for the requisitioning of premises, vehicles, equipment and stores in case of emergency. Fourth, they have to ensure the training, planning and disposition of local authority staff in accordance with the Civil Defence (Public Protection) Regulations of 1967.
All that under those four heads will be an enormous task which will require at least one man with expert knowledge, considerable administrative ability and enough status. He will have to have an office and some clerical help and it simply cannot be done on the money allocated. No authority could do that satisfactorily


on £4,500 and of course £1,500 or £2,000 would be a ludicrous amount. If this is wrong let us be told, but I am assured this is not wrong. but that this is the position. I have heard that from more than one local authority source. We should be told why, over a few weeks, the £1 million has become £480,000. Can I make a plea, as much in sorrow as in anger—because I really believe the Government should think again about this even at this late stage. As it stands their future policy for emergency planning, of which they have made so much and on which the hon. Gentleman hopes to reassure the House and the public, is not preparation for total war. It is total deception.
As to the second matter on which we should have minimum assurances, volunteers continuing to train on a voluntary basis, we must remember that for the past year or so the county councils and county borough councils have had to reorganise their Civil Defence Corps down to a lower level so that the district councils and small borough councils have been involved. Therefore, if volunteers are to meet together again it will not often mean much travelling for them, and they could meet in town halls and district council buildings; and those buildings could be used at a trifling cost to cover heating, lighting and cleaning. I hope the Government will give their blessing to this. The hon. Gentleman said that the Exchequer assistance could not exceed what was prescribed, which for these kind of purposes is £480,000. But is there any impediment on these trifling sums of money being found out of the rates? I hope that when the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replies to this debate we may have the assurance that it would be in order for local authorities to charge these small amounts against the rates. It would be very sad if that did not happen.
Many volunteers possess training pamphlets and instruction books and they should be told in the next Home Office circular that they may keep them. They should be requested to store them carefully and might even be instructed to refresh their memories from them from time to time. But at any rate they should be kept so long as those people intend to continue training on a voluntary basis. On 22nd February last in an Adjourn-

meat debate the hon. Gentleman when considering this question of volunteers continuing on an informal basis first of all poured cold water on it—though not quite the deluge of cold water he has poured today—and said:
Nevertheless, the Government do not want to discourage the volunteer spirit, if some ready and reliable means of retaining voluntary activity, without cost can be found. It will be interesting to see what happens to some of the local ideas and experiments which are being proposed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1968; Vol. 749, c. 809.]
Since then, of course, some of the civil defence volunteers have got together and put forward most elaborate proposals well worthy of consideration. I suggest that their efforts should be encouraged just as much, as for example, the Red Cross, St. John Ambulance and Women's Royal Voluntary Services are encouraged. If those voluntary bodies can be encouraged, why cannot, for example, a Voluntary Civilian Aid Association be encouraged? I hope we shall be assured that the Government will help and not hinder this praiseworthy offer of voluntary public service.
As to the third matter, allowing local authorities to provide reasonable facilities, I will just add that the Government already know from the representations made to them that local authorities themselves are willing to give a modest amount of the help required to enable volunteers to continue training; but unless the Government grant or allow local authorities to spend the money to perform their own statutory duties, that is to say, to have a civil defence officer to perform those four tasks I have mentioned, the chance of the volunteers effectively remaining together to train for emergency is dim indeed. So it goes back to this £480,000.
There are in various parts of the country what are called, I believe, battle training grounds. They are a mass of bricks and rubble. I have visited several of them and they are unlikely to be valuable for any other public purpose. I hope that the Government will at least be so generous as to allow these splendid shambles to be used by civil defence volunteers for voluntary training and I hope we shall not have cold water poured upon that suggestion. In a Home Office circular it on Civil Defence issued in January, 1967, it was said:
If, against all probability, an attack were to be made there might be only a very short


time for overt precautions and emergency plans must reflect this.
That was the Government view then. Now the Government have switched right round.
In the last resort, the test of whether these Orders should be affirmed and the Civil Defence Corps disbanded lies in the answer to this question: could civil defence, with all its elaborate training, chain of control and organised readiness, be reactivated quickly enough in an emergency?
I suggest that the answer is, certainly not, in the light of the speech which we have heard today and in the light of the Government's present decisions and attitudes. But, if the Government were to have second thoughts, even at this last minute, about local authority expenditure and if they let the volunteers fulfil their hopes, something would be immediately available at short notice and plenty of lives could then be saved.
I am afraid that I interrupted the hon. Gentleman in his speech on the question of compulsory service, and he did not seem quite certain of the answer to give. I hope that I do not sound offhand if I presume to give the House an answer from the information at my disposal.
The position is that some countries have civil defence corps rather like ours. Other countries have regular police, fire and life saving services, full-time and fully paid, and neither volunteers nor any form of compulsory service. In other countries, notably Norway, Russia, Sweden and Switzerland, civil defence service is an alternative to compulsory military service and, therefore, they have compulsory civil defence service. But there is no country in the world likely to be threatened which has or will have so little preparation for nuclear war as this country will have once the Civil Defence Corps is disbanded and civil defence is put on to a care and maintenance basis. If there is any other country which counts in these matters, perhaps we shall be told and given the comparison. That is the challenge which I put to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ennals: Our assessment is that, once the changes have been made, we

shall be spending about the same proportion on civil defence as France.

Sir D. Renton: But the hon. Gentleman has mistaken the situation in France, where to a very great extent they rely upon the training of their regular services of police, fire and so on. With great respect to him, his comparison is not a valid one.
This is a tragic occasion. The credibility of the deterrent is being diminished. The country is being deprived of the readiness of a service which could save millions of lives if war should come, whether total nuclear war or something less damaging but still destructive. All this is happening because the Government have so squandered the people's hard-earned money on bad and inessential purposes that they cannot find the modest premium to reassure and protect the people.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) is right when he says that there is no real possibility of the speedy reactivation of the Civil Defence Corps once the consequences of these Regulations have taken effect.
The Civil Defence Corps is virtually being disbanded. The Under-Secretary of State was at pains to suggest that this is not happening. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in his definition of what is taking place, and in that respect he is being more realistic than my hon. Friend. I differ from him when I come to consider his estimation of the consequences.
I do not need to rely upon what the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said on 4th March, 1965. I need not repeat it, because HANSARD speaks for itself. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes that he had not said it. It is probably very inconvenient for his hon. Friends that he did.
I prefer to rely upon what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said on the same day:
I do the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone the credit of believing that he was sincere in what he said … He talked very seriously indeed about the need for world government. He talked very seriously about


what would happen if any thermo-nuclear exchange took place. He understands these facts. He knows that if we ever loose off this weapon, life on this island would be extinct within three days."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 1660.]
That was no irresponsible person speaking. It was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
If what my right hon. Friend said is true, as I believe, the discussion which has taken place in this debate until now has been unrealistic. We are not alone in this House. We do not exist here in a vacuum. Scientific evidence about the probabilities of the consequences of thermo-nuclear war is at our disposal. Taking the best scientific information that we can get, the probability is that, in this crowded island, human survival is a matter which cannot be counted upon unless one accepts the word "survival" as meaning survival after the first few minutes. If one says that a person who is alive after the immediate impact has survived, in that sense there will be survivals.
My right hon. Friend has quoted a period of three days, after which all life may be extinct, and I think that that is about the right sort of estimate, if one excludes vegetable matter and talks in terms of human survival. Therefore, it is important that we should recognise precisely what we are discussing, and mainly we are discussing thermo-nuclear war and the possibilities of survival in that event.

Sir T. Beamish: The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House about the views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who made it clear in reply to an intervention from the hon. Gentleman that, in his view, millions would survive a nuclear attack and need succour. He is deliberately misleading the House, and that is thoroughly dishonest.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) must not accuse me of dishonesty. He knows that his right hon. and learned Friend wishes that he had not said what he said. I do nor blame him for it. Many of us change our minds and wish, on reflection, that we had not made certain statements in the past. However, it is in HANSARD in black and white, though

I will not bore the House by reading it again. Clearly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said it.

Sir T. Beamish: Thoroughly dishonest.

Mr. Jenkins: Nonsense. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must be quiet. If he wishes to intervene, I suggest that he should stand up and do so rather than make loud interventions from a seated position.

Sir T. Beamish: In that case, what I said was that the hon. Gentleman is deliberately misleading the House by misquoting my right hon. and learned Friend, who made it clear later in his speech exactly what he meant. However, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) chooses not to refer to the later passage in my right hon. and learned Friend's speech, because he wants to mislead the House. I hope that he will apologise.

Mr. Jenkins: Certainly I will not—

Sir T. Beamish: It is quite disgraceful.

Mr. Jenkins: That is nonsense. However, since the hon. and gallant Gentleman invites me to do so, I will read the whole passage from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am only sorry that he is not present to hear it. He said this:
… others may survive the nuclear exchange. The Chinese may survive; masses in Asia and Africa may survive; for aught I know, the Russians and the Americans, after having suffered immeasurable damage, might after a fashion survive, too. I do not know, but one thing I know, and that is that we would not survive …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 1650.]
The hon. and gallant Gentleman, in suggesting that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone did not say that, is himself being dishonest. I accuse him of total dishonesty in trying to mislead the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. We cannot have these continual accusations across the Floor of the Chamber.

Sir T. Beamish: Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have these continual mutual accusations of dishonesty across the Floor.

Sir T. Beamish: As the hon. Member for Putney has invited me to interrupt—I shall not do so again—I will tell him exactly what my right hon. and learned friend said. It is a very brief extract. He said, in reply to an intervention by the hon. Gentleman: I never meant to suggest that one could say that after a nuclear attack there would not be millions of people alive, millions of people sick, millions of people hurt, and millions of people in need of the common necessities of life and the elements of civil Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1788.]
Now let the House decide who is telling the truth and who is lying.

Mr. Jenkins: I am well aware that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said that on another occasion. He also said what I say he said. One takes one's choice of quotations. I prefer the original quotation of March, 1965, to the later correction.
I repeat that I do not have to rely upon that, because I have relied upon, and have quoted, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who made a much more categorical statement than the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I went so far as to say that I thought my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went too far. However, we do not need to rely upon information and opinions expressed in the House. We can go outside the House. We can, for example, if we wish, remind ourselves that on the subject of civil defence The Times has said this:
If there were an attack, could Civil Defence do anything significant to alleviate our lot? That is, do people believe that 'some semblance of ordered existence', as the L.C.C. report puts it, could be restored after the attack for those who survived it, or do they believe that the reality would be nearer the total extinction drawn so vividly by Nevil Shute in his book ' On the Beach '? The evidence throws its weight on the side of the second belief.
This is the position I put before the House. It is a rational position. It is one which has enormous support outside the House and some support inside it. I do not see why the hon. and gallant Gentleman should get so excited about it. He and I went across to County Hall, after the Government's announcement of what they intended to do today had been made, to face a group at the Institute of Civil Defence. At the time I thought that no more foolhardy enterprise had

ever been undertaken since Daniel entered the lion's den. I was indeed pleasantly surprised. I was a little alarmed by some of the written questions, one of which I quote:
Many of us feel that the disbandment of civil defence on economy grounds is a bogus excuse trumped up to suit the political book of those who would like to see a hammer and sickle over Westminster and a dictator installed at Buckingham Palace. Are we so very wrong?
I was pleased to be able to tell them that they were wrong. The tenor of the discussion was far removed from that type of question.
I formed the impression, as I had in previous conversations with civil defence people, that they themselves basically recognise that the task they are being asked to perform is one impossible of fulfilment. They wish to discuss the question of the continuation of the Civil Defence Corps in some more rational form, one in which they would not be asked to carry out duties which most people who have studied the subject in any detail realise are impossible of fulfilment.
I have kept with this subject for a number of years. Like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I was a member of the Royal Observer Corps before the last world war and retain interesting memories of my association with that excellent body. At the time it was just the Observer Corps: it had not got the "Royal". Subsequently I was in the Royal Air Force, and I obtained some rather closer knowledge during that period of the consequences of bombing. I was in Asia when the thermo-nuclear bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I have studied the development of this problem ever since the invention of the fission bomb, and more so since the invention of the fusion bomb.
In my view, a fundamental change took place, to which hon. Members have not yet adjusted themselves, when the change from fission to fusion took place. The possibility of human survival in some form still existed in terms of the fission bomb, in terms of what is known as the atomic bomb. When we moved from fission to fusion and when the H-bomb was developed as a result, a situation arose for the first time which hon. Members quite clearly still find so uncomfortable to face that it fills them


with anger. I understand this. Anybody who tries to point out what is happening, that life itself is threatened, is treated as somebody who is doing something which ought not to be done. I think that it ought to be done.
I believe that the Government themselves, by deciding that the Civil Defence Corps should be disbanded—or put on a care and maintenance basis, as my hon. Friend would prefer me to say—have taken a step which is a better one than they are taking credit for.
Although they have taken this step they say, "No. We have not really done it. We still have all the apparatus left behind. The whole thing is still really there".

Sir Eric Errington: The hon. Gentleman says that it is claimed that the apparatus is there. My information is that the apparatus has been removed some distance in most cases. The apparatus of civil defence for Birmingham has been moved 90 miles away.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman and I are using the word "apparatus" in two different senses. The hon. Gentleman is using it in terms of machinery in its technical sense.

Mr. John Horner: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that, in the event of an emergency, it would be no good leaving the apparatus inside Birmingham. It would be moved out, in any case.

Mr. Jenkins: I agree. I used the word "apparatus" in the non-technical sense of suggesting that the Government were still keeping in being—this is my belief—the whole set-up of the regional seats of Government which exist underground all over the country. There are, I think, 11 of them. They have a full manned strength of a very substantial number of people. They are manned by people from various Government Departments. The nearest one to London, that from which the Chief of the London Civil Defence Corps would operate, is at Reading. The reason why he would operate from Reading is that there is no possibility of survival in London. Therefore, he recognises the truth of my assertion: the possibility of human survival in the event of a nuclear attack is so remote that, to operate a civil defence apparatus for London, one goes to Reading.
This organisation will remain. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us whether I am correct in assuming that the whole infrastructure of civil defence is intended to remain. If so, I think that my hon. Friend will get the worst of all worlds. Under the Conservative Government the civil defence service was never very full, anyway. If they had developed the service to a full evacuation and shelter policy, to an extent such that people could have had real belief in it, and had coupled that with the retention of the nuclear weapon—the retention of the nuclear weapon, on the one hand, and a full civil defence service costing many hundreds of millions of £s on the other—there might have been a shred of reason in such a policy.
I think that the other policy, which would be very much cheaper and better, is to have no civil defence, and no Polaris, because, if we do not have an attraction for other people's nuclear weapons, we do not need civil defence. Let us face it, to sustain nuclear weapons and bases is merely to create a target. If we maintain Polaris, we maintain this country as a target for nuclear weapons from elsewhere. To maintain nuclear weapons and bases, and simultaneously to put civil defence on a care and maintenance basis, seems to me to be adopting a policy to provide the worst of both worlds.
I should like to regard the Government's policy as moving in the direction of a rational approach to the problem. I hope that the decision to put civil defence on a care and maintenance basis, or, as I see it, virtually to disband it, is a move in the direction of opting out from the nuclear arms race. I should like to see this as a recognition by the Government that this country is in a peculiarly vulnerable position. Whatever other countries may do, the Government should give a lead in opting out of the nuclear arms race. I should like to see them take the next step necessary to help our economy, which is to get rid of nuclear weapons.
Ever since knowledge of the civil defence force during my six years as a member of the London County Council—at that time it was the largest Civil Defence Corps in being, and I think it still is, even though it was always rather less than one-tenth of its theoretical


strength—I have had a very soft spot for civil defence people, impossible though their task has always been.

Mr. Farr: They do not have a soft spot for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jenkins: That may be so, but when I went with the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) to visit some of the civil defence people, I was surprised to find that they had rather a softer spot for me than they might have had. They were very kind and courteous, and I much appreciated it.
It is natural that people who are told that their function is one which they can no longer carry out should not be happy about it. I take the view that so long as we have Polaris there is a function which ought to be performed by a corps of this sort. The Government ought to create a euthanasia corps. While we have Polaris, there is the possibility of death occurring on a huge scale. The question, therefore, is what will happen during the three days which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said was the period for which people would still be alive in this country after a nuclear attack? Supposing he is right. Supposing it is true that there will be life in this country for three days after a nuclear attack. Ought not we to make some realistic provision for that possibility? Is it not a condition of the possession of Polaris that we provide for the consequences of it? Have not the Government a straightforward duty to provide for the painless extinction of the population of this country? I suggest that the Government should create a euthanasia corps to make sure that the policy of extinction is followed to its logical conclusion, and the people of this country are provided with a reasonably dignified way out, instead of the present irresponsible policy.
I believe that for the first time—whether they admit it or not—by this decision to put the Civil Defence Corps on a care and maintenance basis the Government have begun to admit the facts of life in the nuclear age. For this reason I support these Regulations.

5.15 p.m.

Sir Frank Pearson: I do not wish to follow in detail the arguments

of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). I do not think there is an hon. Member on this side of the House who does not totally disagree with every word he said, and does not reject the whole basis of his argument. It is all very well having a highly intellectual logical mind, but a highly intellectual logical mind is usually entirely wrong in its conclusions. We can only thank God that gentlemen such as the hon. Gentlemen, with his logical mind, were not in charge of the affairs of this country in 1940, when, by all the logic of the situation, this country should have ceased to exist.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I took my logical mind into uniform in 1940?

Sir Frank Pearson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the post of command of his own Euthanasia corps, because nobody else will take it on.
Perhaps I might revert to the Regulations. We last debated this matter on 29th February. At that time many of us were disappointed that possibly the importance of the subject was not reflected in the space which the Press gave to our debate, but I was glad to see in this morning's papers the amount of space given to reporting the excellent debate on this subject in another place yesterday, when some extremely valuable contributions were made. I hope that after reading the reports the public will begin to realise exactly what we are doing on the Floor of the House this afternoon by tearing down the whole civil defence organisation which we have had in this country for the past 20 years.
I think that we must be clear about this. In the debate in the other place yesterday, the Minister replying for the Government talked about a reduction in our civil defence services, and the Under-Secretary of State did the same thing today. This is not a true statement of the situation. The true situation is that under these Regulations the statutory rights of local authorities to organise civil defence personnel in their areas will be removed in its entirety. This is the situation, and we shall be left with paper plans, and a so-called chain of control which will have no useful purpose in practice.
The terrible thing is that the destruction of this highly important movement in the


defence services of the country—and that is what it is—is being justified purely and solely on the basis of saving about £8 million or £9 million. That is all it is. No one has come to the House to justify this extremely important decision on the grounds of defence potential.
When the Under-Secretary of State put his case to the House, he rather gave the impression that we had a vast and highly efficient civil defence network spread throughout the country. I would be the last to claim that our present Civil Defence services are as fully effective as they would need to be in an emergency. I would almost be prepared to admit that in many instances they are well below the strength at that which they ought to be even under existing circumstances. What I deny is that at their present level they were ever meant to be a wide-ranging cohesive civil defence organisation. They were meant as a series of nucleii through all the main centres of population—a relatively few civilian volunteers prepared to train as wardens, rescue service men or in any of the other departments of civil defence. It was in this rôle that I attached the greatest importance to them.
Should the terrible crisis ever come, one of the Government's prime duties will be to ensure that there is no civilian panic. Control of the civil population will matter more than anything else, and that can never be effectively achieved through a purely professional and whole-time organisation. It is essential that any civil defence system, to be effective, should have members who are part of the civil population, in day-to-day touch with the population and with full knowledge of their local area. This is the value of the civil defence service which we are now tearing down and it is this quality of local knowledge and contact which will be so difficult to regain or to achieve if the terrible moment should come when we had to try to re-alert these services.
I will try to deal with the point of the hon. Member for Putney, that if nuclear war came the whole island would be wiped out. No one in the House today can say what would happen in a nuclear attack or even that there would be such an attack in the event of hostilities. Who is to say that conventional attack would not be the order of the day and that, if a nuclear missile were fired,

it would hit its target, or that the whole country would be affected? No one can say that.
Thus, it is right that the Government should take minimal measures to ensure that services are available which, in a conflict—however far away or unlikely that may seem—could form the nucleus of a wide-ranging civil defence system. It is because these Regulations tear down that service and abolish the hope of such a service that we must vote against them today.
This relates not only to the question of defence but also to the important necessity for assistance in times of civil catastrophe. I was very disappointed when the Under-Secretary gave so little hope of any organisation which could be of value for civil defence. Some months ago, when there was a terrible earthquake in Sicily, one of the first things on our television screens that evening was a picture of a civil defence unit leaving, I think, Bristol for Sicily to give immensely valuable help. This sort of thing does far more good than technical and overseas aid or overseas bases, and I condemn the Government for losing this great opportunity of turning at any rate a part of our civil defence into a voluntary aid service for times of civil disturbance. They had a great opportunity but did not have the imagination to take it. They have torn down an organisation which could have been of inestimable help to this country and others. For that, I condemn them.
I wish to turn to one or two minor details. I am very worried about the future position of civil defence personnel who have served for some time. I have been to Taymouth Castle, I have been to the Staff College, and I was at one time chief civil defence warden for the whole of Lancashire, so I know something of the magnificent service which many of these men have given in these institutions. Not all these men are permanently recruited. Many are temporarily recruited, although they have been in the service for 15 or 20 years. I hope that the Minister will tell us what he is doing to help these, technically, temporary employees and assure us that he will see that they get fair compensation or pension terms, whatever it may be. I am talking not of the ordinary civil defence workers but of the technical and


office staff at these establishments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to help.
This is a sad and tragic occasion, when this great service is being torn down and the whole voluntary spirit dissipated, not only in civil defence but in the Territorial Army and the fire services. It shows a complete lack of understanding by the Government of what makes the British people tick, what they really understand and value. That, to me, is the most tragic aspect of this debate. Tonight, we shall go into the Lobby, although I do not suppose that we have any hope of defeating the Government. If right were to be done, however, we should defeat them, because the Regulations should never be allowed to pass.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. John Horner: I took my first civil defence course, an air raid precaution course, 34 years ago, so I hope that the House will not think me immodest if I say that I have some acquaintance, both practically and theoretically, with the problem which we are discussing. I share many of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). I believe that the rôle of civil defence is totally irrelevant to the survival of the millions of people who would be left alive after nuclear attack.
We can waste the time of the House disputing what the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) did or did not say about life being totally extinct in these islands after a major nuclear attack. What we are concerned with is the rôle of civil defence, and if people survive it will not be because of the capacity or the sort of civil defence which any Government has ever conceived or been prepared to plan and pay for.
The case for civil defence is that millions will survive and will require medical aid, food, shelter, guidance, reassurance, and some prospect of being able to go on living, but it will not be civil defence which will provide any of these things. If nuclear war comes to these islands, the total disaster, which is unimaginable now, would be neither of a scope nor of a nature which could conceivably be dealt with by the sort of

civil defence organisation which we are discussing.
The Government should have had the courage not merely to put civil defence in mothballs and give it a care and maintenance rôle but to recognise that it is irrelevant. It is a grotesque farce and a dangerous one at that, as I will explain shortly. First, however, I wish to concentrate on an aspect of civil defence of which I have intimate and personal knowledge. I refer to fire fighting. I have not heard a squeak of protest about the winding up of the A.F.S. from any of the professional firemen engaged in local authority fire brigades. I have seen a number of statements from the National Association of Fire Officers and from the Fire Brigades Union, and certain chief fire officers—

Sir D. Renton: On a point of order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me interrupting his speech, but I do so to remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I disciplined myself not to talk about the Auxiliary Fire Service because we are to have a separate debate on the Regulations covering that matter. That being so, would it not be more interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman's observations in that later debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was wondering about that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman intervened. I should perhaps point out to the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) that the House decided that it would be better to have a separate debate on that subject on the Fire Service Regulations. The hon. Gentleman might, therefore, think it better to defer his observations until then.

Mr. Horner: I shall be obliged if I am able to catch your eye again later. In the meantime, I will defer my observations on this subject.
When we see the tattered remnants of civil defence left behind when these Regulations are approved, when the local authorities have stored away all the equipment and paid off—or found new employment in local government, as we hope will happen—the small number of whole-time local government officers, we will still be told by this Government as we have been told by former Governments, that civil defence has a rôle to play.
Having taken this step to dismantle what hon. Gentlemen opposite have called the "infrastructure of civil defence", how on earth, within the period which may be available, if it looks as though the international situation will reach such a point of tension—a position which we hope and pray will never arise—that we must mobilise the civil defence, will we be able to put back the clock? Having approved these Regulations, what mechanism will be available to local authorities to reintroduce their civil, defence organisations on anything like a workable basis?
The volunteers will have drifted away, the training schools will have run down and the equipment, however much care is exercised, will have rusted, become eroded and be out of date. If new equipment is provided, fresh training will have to be given. It is for this reason that the action of the Government in this matter should have been pursued to its logical end. We should say that the time has come when, in the sort of world in which we live, with the normal weapon in a nuclear war being a 10-megaton bomb, civil defence along the lines we have known is of no value.
A 10-megaton bomb is equal to 10 million tons of T.N.T. An unbroken railway line stretching from Paris to Constantinople and carrying trucks filled with T.N.T. gives one an impression of what 10 million tons of T.N.T. looks like. The Ministry of Health spelt out in an earlier circular the 53 major targets which might expect to sustain a nuclear attack, places like Lancashire, Birmingham and across the whole of South-East England. This being so, how can hon. Gentlemen opposite complain about moving equipment from Birmingham? The whole conception of civil defence is that one cannot fight at the point of attack because one cannot exist at that point and because one will not be able to get there for some weeks.

Sir E. Errington: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is such a thing as reason in sucking duck eggs? It is silly to move equipment 90 miles away. The equipment should be 20 to 30 miles away. It is ludicrous to suggest that equipment which is 90 miles away could be effective.

Mr. Horner: That intervention illustrates my point, because 30 miles away would not be far enough. If the hon. Gentleman assumes that we are talking about duck eggs, I assure him that I am not talking about bombs in the sense that the word is normally used. We are talking about tremendous instruments of destruction. If a 10-megaton nuclear bomb was dropped here at Westminster at ground level, the first signs of destruction would be seen 80 miles away and in Southampton and Peterborough windows would be smashed. In Luton and Maidstone, 30 miles away, doors and windows would be blown in and interior partitions of houses and offices would be destroyed. At St. Albans and Brentwood, 20 miles away, the roads would be cluttered with debris. At Epping and Dartford, 50 miles away, houses would be burning and people in the streets would be seriously burnt by the heat flash. At Romford, Surbiton and Chislehurst, 12 miles away, the main zone of fire would begin and there would be a fire zone of 24 miles in diameter.
That would be the result of only one bomb. [Interruption.] I gather that hon. Gentlemen opposite are aware of these facts. If so, they must be aware of what 10 such instruments of destruction, scattered over the South and the Midlands would do, with fall-out and centres of fire combining to create fire storms. It is in these circumstances that we are being asked to support the idea that we should keep some sort of civil defence organisation and that there would be survivors. Probably people will survive fall-out, the destruction and poisoned food.
There is a greater realisation today—and I am glad of it—of the facts of nuclear warfare. Not more than a year or two ago the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food issued a circular on the question of the effect of fall-out on farms. It told us:
Any crops which have been subject to fall-out will call for careful handling. Peas within the pod will themselves be safe but care will be needed in shelling them, and they should be well washed before cooking. Brassicas will be the least easy but the really firm-hearted cabbage or lettuce, provided the outer leaves are discarded and the rest well washed, should be reasonably safe to eat.
I am glad that the Ministry no longer issues circulars of that kind to local


authorities and that there is greater realisation of what we are talking about.
The Government should have gone further and wound up the civil defence organisation altogether. Civil defence workers are sincere, devoted and keen people. We have abused their services and sought to maintain a farce. I should have been glad if the Government tonight had rung down the curtain once and for all on this. I support the Regulations, but I think that the Government could have gone a great deal further.

5.43 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Having heard the opinions of the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner), it came as no surprise to hear that he gained most of his experience of civil defence in the old A.R.P. days 30 years ago. I cannot share his all-or-nothing view in terms of military activities. The naïve assumption that the future holds either total war or total peace seems entirely untenable. Yet on that assumption he based his entire argument.
If it were possible to take that view and to believe that we would remain without incidents, occasional explosions and that kind of attack but with only the possibility of a totally destructive attack, certainly I would accept the hon. Member's general argument, but I do not accept that view and therefore I cannot accept his argument.
I shall not speak for long because we had an opportunity of airing our views on this matter at some length on 29th February, but it is necessary to make clear the reasons why my hon. and right hon. Friends and I will vote against the Government on these Regulations. It is important that we should make those reasons clear because they are not precisely the same—which will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman—as some of the reasons which might be advanced by others on this side of the House for opposing the Government on matters of defence. It is important that we should not be misunderstood, except by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) who appears bent on misunderstanding everyone.
Our reasons are these. First, we do not believe that the financial gain from

this step, which will be small, will be adequate compensation for the loss of something which is potentially large. Secondly, we think it would be wrong to leave us without this corps. I use the word "us" in precisely the same way as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) used the term "we" in the quotation which the hon. Member for Putney persistently misunderstood and continued to misunderstand despite innumerable explanations. I mean "us" as the country or as an institution rather than as a collection of individuals. It would be wrong to leave us with nothing to replace the Civil Defence Corps in the event of a national emergency which might arise.
Thirdly, we oppose the Government because we object to the way in which this is being done. It is needlessly jettisoning a store of public-spiritedness and expertise which could have been kept continually in existence at very small expense. I make clear that neither I nor my hon. Friend regard civil defence as in any way a total answer to total war. There is a perpetual tendency to misunderstand this. Every time anyone mentions civil defence an hon. Member opposite will say that there is no defence against nuclear attack. We are not saying that the existence of elaborate or simple civil defence is a total answer to total war and that provided we have the right kind of civil defence forces we can ignore for all time the threats of attack which exist. We do not say that and I hope that it will not be understood that we are saying that.
Nor do we regard the existence of civil defence as a kind of open invitation to attack in the way sometimes expressed by hon. Members opposite, that by advocating the continuation of some kind of civil defence we are giving an invitation to attack and escalating the whole business of nuclear warfare. I cannot accept that view. We certainly would support the Government in their attempts to reconsider civil defence in the light of various developments to which hon. Members have referred and in adapting civil defence to modern and more immediate needs, but that is very different from saying that we would support what amounts to the total abolition of civil defence.
We would support its total abolition if we felt that it would be right to say that we regard it, as some hon. Members opposite do, as useless. I do not regard it as useless. I accept that its use has frequently been exaggerated and that some people derive an unwarranted degree of comfort from the existence of civil defence and believe that it can provide a complete defence against attack. But if there is a nuclear war or an incident, be it small or large, deliberate or accidental, covering an enormous field in a multiple attack or a small area in a single incident, some people will inevitably need succour and assistance of the kind which the civil defence can provide. Where they will be is arguable, because we do not know where the attack would come, but it is as certain as night follows day that if there is an attack, however large, there will be people on the fringe who need the aid, expert advice and assistance which only civil defence can provide.
Hon. Members have referred to their own experience of civil defence. As I have told the House before, I was a part-time medical officer and adviser to one of Britain's largest ordnance factories for 18 years and I was deeply involved in civil defence training over those years in that establishment. I am as much aware as anyone of the deficiencies of civil defence and of some of the things which have been quoted lightheartedly as entertaining and amusing but useless and that some of those things were far from soundly based. It was right that some of them should go and new methods should be recommended.
Nevertheless, over the years, knowledge has evolved. I say without fear of contradiction that I sincerely believe that, as a result of my training in civil defence, my chance of survival of a nuclear attack is marginally greater than that of people who have not had training. Of course, I could put myself in a situation in which the chance would be nil. I accept this, But there will be situations in which the chance will be marginal. There is no doubt that the chances of those who have had training in how to behave, how to defend themselves and how to adopt certain precautions, will be marginally, or even substantially, better than others and it is not something which we should

here and now abandon without further thought. It would not have cost us a great deal to have kept a useful civil defence force in being.
I believe that we must keep some form of civil defence force to carry on training, spreading knowledge throughout the country and to be the focal point to which people can go to get training and help if they feel that they need it. I accept the argument that some people may feel that they do not wish to survive this kind of holocaust. Some people may no longer wish to live in that kind of world. But I do not take the view that that is the kind of decision I am entitled to make on behalf of other people. We have an obligation to provide the training for those who wish to take advantage of it. How do we do this? The right way to do it is by taking advantage of all the offers that have been made to establish a volunteer force. I accept that there would be some expenditure attached to this involving both the Government and local authorities. But I think I should point out that the savings which will be made by local authorities may not be as great as is thought, because some of those at present employed on civil defence matters on behalf of local authorities are, in addition, serving certain other functions which may have to continue after they have been made redundant. Therefore, it is possible, when the calculation has been done, that the saving may not be as great as is thought.
I say that we should take advantage of the offers which have been made. People who are prepared to continue training should be encouraged and assisted. We ought to do what we can to increase that number, because I believe that in the long run it will prove valuable to this country to have a greater percentage of the population trained in knowledge at least of what to expect, so that those who happen by accident to be on the fringe of the event, whatever the event may be, may be of service to themselves, to their families and to their fellow men.
I turn now to the point about which there has been so much argument regarding the moving of appartus from Birmingham. It must be understood that the need for apparatus in Birmingham is not because something will fall on Birmingham, but because Birmingham


may at some stage be on the fringe of an event happening somewhere else.

Mr. Horner: I know that there will be an occasion to speak about the emergency fire service afterwards, but I must say to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) that if an emergency were to arise the fire service units would move far outside the main centres of population.

Dr. Winstanley: I must not be tempted out of order by the hon. Gentleman's observation. I repeat that it is necessary for us to see that there is a pool of the appropriate apparatus available in various places throughout these islands so that in one, two or three of those particular places use might be made of it. That is the point I make.
My party is not anxious that we should maintain a massive civil defence force to try to do jobs which are impossible, but we honestly believe it is a serious mistake for the Government to discard the offers which have been made and not to seek the advantages which could be gained.
It is not only for war purposes. There are many kinds of national disaster, as has been shown, where trained personnel can be helpful. Aberfan and the Stockport air crash, in which many of my constituents were involved, are but two of many which could be mentioned. The more people in the community trained in how to conduct themselves and guard against dangers and how to organise themselves and others, the better it will be for this country in the end.
We are against these proposals and we shall vote against them. We shall vote against them because we believe that they are makeshift proposals. The Government have not taken a clear view. They have just said, "We have to save a bit of money, so we will save it here." In this way the Government are drifting on the tide of events. It is a kind of military pragmatism. If it was a clear and coherent policy we would be more inclined to support the Government. However, we are against the proposals, because we believe that the savings will not compensate for the loss. We regret that nothing is being put in place of the civil defence forces for use in a national emergency, save the Services.
We believe that the failure to establish a volunteer force and to make use of these offers of people to continue serving and being trained will save very little but will throw away very much. For all those reasons we will oppose the Government on this Measure.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: First, I must declare a vested interest in civil defence, as many thousands of my constituents have for a number of years been producing Polaris submarines. For that reason my constituents are likely to be among the first targets of any nuclear attack on this country and, therefore, they will possibly be more in need of the services of civil defence than the constituents of certain other hon. Members who will be speaking in the debate.
Any objective assessment of the relevance of any form of civil defence must depend upon an understanding of the weapons against which we are trying to defend our civil population. The conventional weapon of the nuclear age, if that is not a mixing of terms, is the megaton bomb or missile, which contains more explosive power than all the conventional explosive that has been used in warfare since gunpowder was first discovered.
The nuclear armouries of the world today are capable of ending civilisation as we know it. It is beyond reasonable doubt that the use of megaton weapons could produce a genetic burden which would be manifest in the disabilities of future generations. If the Government claim to be concerned with the well being of our people, one of their first responsibilities is to safeguard them from a genetic burden which may take away from future generations the ability sanely to decide their future. It may be that in a democratic society we have some rights to take decisions which future generations may think completely unreasonable, but we have no moral right to involve them in danger of not being able sanely to decide how they will conduct their affairs.
It is of the utmost relevance to note that in the report on the effects of the use of nuclear weapons and the security and economic implications of acquisition and development of these weapons, which was presented to the United Nations by


the Secretary-General, the unanimous view of the scientific experts who signed that report was that a nuclear explosion killing only a small percentage of our population would have long-term consequences by way of genetic effects. One of the signatories to that report was Sir Solly Zuckerman, our Government's Chief Scientific Adviser. I congratulate the Government on having sent our Chief Scientific: Adviser to take part in the preparation of the report; it showed a proper appreciation of its importance to the United Nations and to the world in general.
Different forms of civil defence are considered by different Governments. I understand that the Governments of Russia and of the United States have considered anti-ballistic missile systems as a form of civil defence for their population but, although they have gone further and started to build such systems, they are convinced that they will not prevent all nuclear weapons from reaching their targets. In the light of that and of the fantastic cost involved in trying to set up that form of civil defence, our Government were justified in not going ahead with it.
I have a great respect for the people who formed our Civil Defence Corps. They worked, voluntarily in the main, from the highest possible motives. They are people whose services and expertise we should seek to organise to deal with the problems of mass accidents. But this is not to say that we should continue to abuse their willingness to serve by perpetuating the myth that, by serving in civil defence, they can render anything more than a very marginal service in the event of nuclear warfare.
When preparations were first made in this country to determine what could be done by a Civil Defence Corps, a study was made, naturally, of what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But at Hiroshima and Nagasaki the bombs used were 20-kiloton bombs. The ones most likely to be used now are megaton bombs, 50 times as big. The 20-kiloton bomb used on Hiroshima killed 78,000 and injured 84,000 more out of a population of 300,000. The heat it produced was so intense that it melted ceramic roof tiles half a kilometre from the centre of the explosion. Burns accounted for half

the deaths. Fifty-three per cent. of those who received burns at 1 kilometre from the centre of the explosion died in the first week. Seventy-five per cent. died within two weeks. Here I take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) when he spoke about death occurring within three days. This was conjecture. What is fact is that the peak mortality at Hiroshima took place on the fourth day. In many cases, people were dying on the fourth day after having lain without medical aid for four days.
I was deeply impressed by spending a short time in the company of a Mr. Shimoe of Hiroshima who came to Barrow at the time when we launched the first Polaris submarine. By a tragic irony of coincidence, this was 21 years after the year in which he lost his wife and child as a result of the Hiroshima explosion. What he told me and others bore in upon us that, in the circumstances of that relatively small explosion, normal medical and civil services do not exist in the area. It is impossible to bring them into action. The aftermath in genetic effects, the vast increase in the incidence of leukaemia and so on, would be an intolerable prospect for the British people if they fully understood it. One of the reasons why it has not been understood is that civil defence has to some extent perpetuated the myth that people can be defended from this sort of thing in the event of nuclear attack.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says about Hiroshima and Nagasaki because I went there shortly after the bombs were dropped. The important point is that it was a relatively small area geographically, and that help could come from neighbouring cities. This is 'What we are talking about now. We want that help to be available.

Mr. Booth: I appreciate that, but I prefaced what I said regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki by saying that the bombs which were dropped there were 20 kiloton bombs and the bombs-ghost likely to be dropped or delivered by ballistic missile now are megaton bombs, 50 times as large. Therefore, as it was impossible in the small areas of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to stop people dying in enormous numbers even on the fourth day


after the explosion, it would be even more difficult to render aid to the population or even to get to them if a bomb 50 times as large were dropped in an area of high population.
Military theorists today speak of attacks on cities simultaneously in advance of attacks on military targets. Therefore, we have to consider the effects of an attack on a city with the nuclear weapons of the current type if we are to judge whether a civil defence corps such as we have had could be effective. This exercise was, in fact, carried out by the body of scientific experts who reported through U Thant to the United Nations. They made a study of an actual city containing 1 million people and covering 100 square miles, and they examined what the effects of dropping a 1 megaton bomb on the city would be. It was not a densely populated city by modern standards.
They concluded that 270,000 people would be killed by fire or blast, 90,000 would be killed by radioactive fall-out, and a further 90,000 injured. Thus, that one bomb on one city would kill as many as were killed by all the air raids on Japan and Germany in the last war. This is the scale of what we are now facing. They found that every house in the city would be damaged. They considered also what would happen in areas of high population density, and for this purpose they worked out the effects of a bomb being exploded over Manhattan, where there are 8 million people. They decided that 6 million of that population would be killed outright.
The inescapable conclusion is that, in the context of modern weapons, the idea that we can render a viable defence to the civil population is just unrealistic. If we were to perpetuate the organisation which we have up to now called civil defence, we could justify it only by changing its title.
Obviously, we ought to defend our population against nuclear attack. The way to defend them is by getting an agreement to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, by getting an agreement to reduce the existing nuclear weapons arsenals, by having a comprehensive test ban treaty, by preventing any testing of nuclear weapons whatever, and by having

nuclear-free zones of maximum geoprahical area.
For that reason, I shall support the Regulations before us, in the belief that they will bring about a quicker realisation on the part of the British people that they cannot defend themselves from nuclear attack through a civil defence corps, and we must defend ourselves by a much wider political approach to the problem.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) spoke from a far more practical point of view than the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner), with whom I am in total disagreement. He at least realised that there would be a centre where a bomb might drop and and that there would be other parts of the British Isles where help and succour would be needed urgently. He brought this out, perhaps inadvertently, by saying that so many people were dying in Hiroshima and Nagasaki four days after the attack. Had Japan been prepared for a nuclear attack help might well have come in two days or even 24 hours. That is the sort of thing we want to be prepared for. Perhaps by mistake, the hon. Gentleman brought out the very point we are trying to make, that if help is ready it can be speedily moved to where it is most required.
We on this side of the House are all speaking with great feeling for this is perhaps very nearly the last day the Civil Defence Corps will be in being. We all feel very sad about this. Whenever we have had the chance in recent weeks, we have all paid tribute to the outstanding work of the volunteers and the civil defence officers and their full-time staff for the really great work that they have done over many years. They have been a wide cross-section of the community, and all the more effective because of that, because it has been possible to bring in real experts in almost every subject.
The Corps has been a very important chain of communications between the Government and the people, and would be even more so in times of emergency. It has had the radio communication, vehicles and the know-how. When a crisis occurred that could be made available very quickly. Like the great majority of


people in this country, I feel that what we paid was a very small price for having that sevice available and ready for when we needed it.
Those hon. Members who, like the Government, suggest that the Civil Defence Corps can somehow be put into suspended animation and brought to life quickly are far from correct. At the end of the war, in 1945. the A.R.P., as it was then, was at a very high state of readiness. It was immediately allowed to run down, and when the Civil Defence Corps was resuscitated in 1948 it was two or three years before it was anything like the efficient force we know today. One cannot suddenly bring civil defence to life by blowing a whistle or flicking a finger and saying that we want volunteers trained in a few months. We may not have those few months to do it.
The consequences of the Government's decision are most depressing. At present the group controllers in charge of areas in Scotland are going around their areas telling the volunteers that their services are no longer required. That must be a soul-destroying job. When we lose our group controllers, our civil defence officers and their staff, we shall have lost the nucleus of the drive and initiative of the Civil Defence Corps, and it may be very hard to get it when we need it.
I should like to put to the Minister one or two points particularly concerning Scotland. In the debate in another place yesterday it was announced that the equipment would be stored in 40 or 50 Home Office stores in England. Where will the equipment be stored in Scotland? Second, I want to know in rather more detail what will happen to our training centre at Taymouth Castle. What will be the position of the staff, and what will happen to the building, which is very large?
Last week I put a Question to the Minister about the long-service medal awarded to members of the Civil Defence Corps for 15 years' service. Many volunteers will miss that much-prized decoration by months or a few years. Will he be prepared, on second thoughts, to reduce the qualifying period from 15 to perhaps 10 years, to give those volunteers of long standing a chance to have something to show for their many days and nights of work?
As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is a sad night for all hon. Members on this side of the House. We have felt that civil defence had a prized place in our national life, and I am very sorry to see it being destroyed by the Government.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I live in the constituency adjoining that of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). If I thought that the civil defence arrangements would be any real good at saving only a fraction of the population from the effects of atomic war, I would certainly not support the disbandment or diminution of the civil defence force. I have argued throughout the years that civil defence was justified if it could save even a very small percentage of the population in the event of a nuclear war.
I have frequently quoted in the House the statement by the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) when we considered the possible results of the dropping of a nuclear bomb over the Glasgow area. We were discussing at that time, six or seven years ago, the possible effects of a nuclear attack on the Polaris base at the Gareloch. The hon. Gentleman argued that it did not much matter where the base was, for if one modern bomb were dropped over Glasgow everything would be destroyed within a radius of 100 miles. Unfortunately, both our constituencies are within a radius of 100 miles of Glasgow, so bath would be wiped out if one of the bombs he described were dropped there.
Therefore, while I believe that the spirit animating our discussion is very good, there is a complete lack of realism. Since that speech was made by the hon. Gentleman, there have been enormous developments both in nuclear war and possible ways of delivering nuclear weapons. We all regret the news in today's papers of the tragic death of the first astronaut, Major Yuri Gagarin, who was very welcome in this country. That tragic accident reminds us of the great developments there have been in the stratosphere during the last seven or eight years. If a nuclear bomb were dropped on this country by rocket in a suicide war it is very difficult to see what


the well-meaning people in the Civil Defence Corps would be able to do to rescue the population. Dumfries would disappear. Both the hon. Gentleman and I would disappear.

Mr. Monro: Let the hon. Gentleman see for himself. He must remember the topographical features of Scotland. Mountain ranges have a singularly, blanketing effect on nuclear war.

Mr. Hughes: I rely for my knowledge of military affairs on my neighbour, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire. When he tells me that a nuclear bomb dropped on Glasgow would destroy everything for 100 miles I put some credence on what he says. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not.

Mr. Monro: It might do for the hon. Gentleman but it does not do for me.

Mr. Hughes: I leave the matter to be decided between the hon. Member and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire.
Bombs are more easily delivered now. Both sides can send missiles to the moon and, indeed, to other planets. If they can hit the moon they can surely hit Dumfries and Glasgow. There has been a change in war which is a great deal greater than the comparison between the First and Second World Wars. If hon. Members ignore the developments in warfare since the Second World War, they are deluding, though perhaps not consciously, both themselves and the people in suggesting that there can possibly be any credible rôle for civil defence.
We are entitled to have our municipal fire brigades and ambulance services for dealing with catastrophes like the recent storms, but I see no reason to imagine that conditions in 1968 are like those of 1948. That is the crux of the argument. When the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) was responsible for civil defence, there was a scheme to evacuate 4,600,000 people. Where are the evacuation plans now? No one talks about them. They were unrealistic. If those plans still exist, they would entail evacuating the civil population into Argyllshire, where the Polaris base is located.
The Navy gives a different picture in telling us of the destructive power of our own Polaris submarines. A pamphlet issued by the Admiralty says:
When 'Resolution' and 'Renown' are at sea in 1968 "—
and "Resolution" has already rehearsed its missile firing with success—
their combined fire power will be greater than the total of all explosives detonated in the history of war.
The hon. Member for Dumfries has just left. He rather tended to minimise the forecast by the hon. and gallant Member for Bate and North Ayrshire. But here is the Admiralty itself saying that these two submarines will have a combined fire power greater than the total of all the explosives detonated throughout the history of war. We must face the fact that everything has changed. The pamphlet goes on:
Even one submarine's fire power will be greater than all the bombs dropped by both sides during the Second World War, including both Hiroshima and Nagasaki".
I have visited both cities. Both were reduced to ruin in a flash. If hon. Members want to read the story of the aftermath, they will find it in a gruesome and detailed account by the American author, John Hersey, in a "Penguin". An atomic bomb could knock out one city then. In the next war, a hydrogen bomb would destroy not a city but a country. If we ever get into a series of events leading to panic and fear and someone on either side of the Atlantic touches a button, this country will be destroyed. That is the background to the debate.
I support the Government. They are being realistic. At the same time, if they said that they were going to increase the destructive power of Polaris submarines then, inevitably, the other side would improve the destructive power of theirs.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not go into that in this debate.

Mr. Hughes: I do not intend to, Mr. Speaker, because I have done it in previous debates. But I am showing that, with the enormous destructive power of nuclear weapons, there is no real defence to justify the Government spending a considerable amount of money on it at a time of financial crisis. We cannot do what the United States does, for example. The Americans spend large sums of money on civil defence. In most of their


large cities there are underground shelters and they are preparing an anti-ballistic missile system. We cannot do that, so we must be sensible and realise that warfare has changed. The world must adapt its political and economic thinking to that fundamental fact.
In previous debates, we have been told that Russia has over 300 submarines. Both sides are piling up destructive power. The situation can only be solved by a change in foreign policy and a policy of disarmament. I support the Government. I wish they would continue on this course. They have become realists as far as civil defence is concerned and I wish there were a similar note of realism towards the rest of the defence programme, on which we are spending over £2,060 million.

6.30 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: I can quite faithfully paraphrase the four speeches that we have heard from the back benches opposite in this way: war is horrible and ghastly and almost unthinkable. There is no complete defence against nuclear attack, therefore we should have no defences at all. That is fair, and anyone who has heard those speeches would agree that this is the "all or nothing" argument that has been put to the House.
This argument and the Government's attitude to civil defence is based on a number of seriously false assumptions. It is based on the assumption that if war comes—and heaven forfend—it would be a nuclear war. Who knows for certain that that is the case? We all remember running around with gas masks in 1939—and what a nuisance they were. There was the conviction among everyone that gas would be used, but it was not. Another false assumption on which the Government base the virtual disbanding of civil defence is on their view that we would have at least six months' warning if a real emergency arose. We have not been told where this assumption comes from.
This attitude is based also on the assumption that war is less likely if we expose ourselves fully to attack. What could be more absurd than that? I found all the arguments from the back benches opposite unconvincing. The arguments of the Under-Secretary

are included in this. He made what I thought was a very disappointing speech containing some quite ridiculous arguments. The Government's decision to disband the Civil Defence Corps raises extremely important questions which ought to be clearly answered, but which have not been answered. This is what is really worrying many of us on this side of the House. These questions have been asked in the recent debates and again today.
I want to make five very short points. I hope to make them in five minutes. First of all, the Government have, without the slightest doubt, had a sudden and total reversal of views about the importance of civil defence. No one can deny that. Some may possibly like it, like the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who welcomes what he calls the Government's realism, but he would be the first to agree that the Government have changed their views and have come far closer to his views than they were before.
It is only a year since the Government spokesman on these matters in another place, Lord Stonham, said that if we suffered the horrors of a nuclear attack only civil defence could ensure the survival of the nation. In December, 1966, the Government announced the reduction in the Civil Defence Corps from 122,000 to 75,000 or 80,000. We were given details by the then Home Secretary in justification when he said:
… if there were a nuclear attack on this country … the civil defence preparations … would enable many millions of lives to be saved.
He went on:
… it would also be wrong to abolish completely an organisation which gives us some re-insurance if an improbable but horrible event were to occur."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1966; Vol. 738, c. 459–61.]
It would be wrong to abolish it, but that is what is now being done by these Regulations. With these, and many other official assurances, no wonder members of the Corps felt that they were undergoing valuable training and preparing to do a useful job. Nor is it any wonder that the country believed that civil defence precautions were necessary, even vital, and that the Government were wisely and properly ensuring that they could be met. I want to reinforce this point by quoting two sentences from the


1967 Defence White Paper. On page 74, under the heading "Home Defence", it says:
The new rôle of the Corps will be of great importance, and there will be a continuing need to attract people of high calibre, with qualities of leadership.
I am sorry that the Under-Secretary is not here, presumably he is still in charge of the debate. Later on that same page it said:
Under the new scheme, which will be adaptable to local cicumstances, local authority employees and the voluntary organisations will play a bigger part.
That was in February 1967—the considered view of the Government after being in power for nearly two and a half years.
My second point is this. It was only last December that the N.A.T.O. Ministerial Conference approved a communique including these words:
Ministers … approved a report on civil emergency planning."—
that is what civil defence is called at N.A.T.O.—
Stressing the vital importance of such planning they noted the progress which had been achieved and the tasks which remained to be accomplished.
No doubt the Secretary of State for Defence subscribed to that view last December. He voted for the communique—at least I raised this question with the Prime Minister ten days ago, and he did not deny that the Government had supported that communique stressing the importance of civil defence in N.A.T.O. There is not the slightest doubt therefore not only that the Government have completely changed their own views, but that they are completely and utterly out of step with N.A.T.O. Generally the British Government are the only Government in step.
My third point has been very well dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), when he said that the suggestion that the Civil Defence Corps was only being put in a state of suspended animation did not make sense to anyone. We know perfectly well that it would take maybe six months, maybe a lot longer, if an emergency arose, before the Corps would make sense, and could be put together again. It is no good pretending that, by

the wave of some magic wand, the whole thing can be recreated. It would be extremely difficult and perhaps impossible in an emergency to mobilise our civil defence.
My fourth point is that the Government's real argument, and they have virtually admitted this, is that even if civil defence precautions are desirable and important, the nation's economy is in such a parlous state that we simply cannot afford it. This is what it boils down to. Everything else is subsidiary. We cannot afford civil defence, although it was regarded as vital only last December. In January it suddenly became of no importance at all.
We can afford vast sums of money running into several hundred millions of £s in order that the party opposite can carry out their old-fashioned Marxist dogma of more nationalisation, but we cannot afford 2d. a week per head of the population to maintain civil defence. Only 2d. a week—that is on the 1969–70 estimates of saving £20 million a year. I simply do not believe it. This argument is a thoroughly dishonest one. It is impossible to find any rational argument for the Government's decision compatible with their earlier policy pronouncements about the need for adequate civil defence.
My fifth and last point is this, and I think it is a very important one. I apologise to the Under-Secretary because, for unavoidable reasons, I came in five minutes after he started his speech and I may have missed something he said about the Territorial Army. As the House knows, the TAVR III has in the Government's view one rôle only which matters—its duties in aid of the civil power to work with the Civil Defence Corps. If, in fact, the Territorials are to be kept on some basis or other, all the arguments we have been using today will be changed because there will then be a body of volunteers trained in civil defence duties and able to carry out the rôle which the Civil Defence Corps had in the past. It is the Home Office which is responsible for the payment of the bulk of the cost of the Territorial Army and we have been anxiously waiting several days now for an announcement about its future. It is unfair to the House to expect us to debate this


question without full knowledge of what decision has been taken about the Territorial Army.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate the Territorial Army on these Regulations.

Sir T. Beamish: I bow immediately to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I felt it was relevant to the debate today, but if I am out of order I will not pursue that further.

Mr. Speaker: What is relevant is not always in order.

Sir T. Beamish: One lives and learns, and I am most grateful to you for your excellent guidance, as usual.
I conclude by saying that I genuinely regard the Government's decision to dismantle practically the whole of the Civil Defence Corps as shocking and unjustifiable, and I deeply deplore it.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: At this stage of the debate, I do not intend to go over the general arguments that have been deployed so well from this side of the House, but I should like to make two general comments.
One is in relation to the speeches we have heard from the other side of the House. I could not help feeling as I sat through all the speeches and heard what has been said on that side of the House regarding the serious and horrible consequences of a nuclear attack—and I agree that they would be serious and horrible—that the more serious and horrible those consequences are the more need there is for us to be prepared and the more detailed the preparations have got to be. I draw the opposite conclusion from that of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that because of the present world situation there is greater need for us to be ready for anything that might happen.
I could not help feeling also, in listening to this debate, that it is very sad to see the passing of the Civil Defence Corps, and that this is a very sorry comment on how low the Government rate home security in the list of priorities for this country. I feel that this is an extremely serious matter. It is not only the civil defence rôle that I am concerned about. I should like also to pay tribute, as

indeed the Under-Secretary did in opening this debate, to the part civil defence has played at times of disaster. I would mention in passing the very important part they played during the clearing-up of the gale damage in Scotland on 15th January.
One thing that was mentioned—and which was also mentioned by the Home Secretary in the debate on 29th February—was the part that could be played by other voluntary services in taking over to some extent the rôle which the Civil Defence Corps has played up to now—that is, the ambulance service, the Red Cross and W.R.V.S.
I would like to ask a question which I hope the Joint Under-Secretary for the Scottish Office will answer. As far as the civil defence rôle is concerned, who is to co-ordinate these voluntary services in their civil defence rôle and in helping to cover situations which used to be covered by civil defence? At the moment, these organisations do not have a formal part to play and there will be much more need for liaison and co-ordination if they are to play a part in the general field of civil defence.
One thing which the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) mentioned in his speech and which is terribly important is the part the Civil Defence Corps and its members have played in the general education of the public as to how they should react and the precautions they should take in the event of a nuclear attack. Who is going to take over this rôle of educating the British people in the kind of preparations they can make as individuals even though they are not members of the civil defence service itself?
I now come to the main point I wish to make, which I think is most important. What is the basic Government thinking underlying civil defence in the future? For example, do the Government still hold their plans for dispersal of the population in the event of nuclear attack, because in those circumstances it will not be the conurbations, the industrial areas, such as Birmingham, which we were talking about earlier in the debate that matter. It will be the country and the rural areas that matter, because those are the areas which must receive the population from the industrial areas in the event of a nuclear attack.
I see the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) nodding his head, and I am glad that he agrees with me, because I think this is a particular problem which we must face in Scotland. It is in the scattered areas that there is more likely to be human activity and life continuing, and these people must be more prepared than people elsewhere. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if this basic thinking underlying civil defence still holds and if there are still plans for the dispersal of the population as there were before this Regulation came to be discussed. This presents particular problems for local authorities in rural areas. It has been said, for example, that the staffs of the local authorities are still to carry out what functions remain for civil defence, and I ask him to bear in mind that the staffs of local authorities in rural areas are not so numerous as those in urban areas and it is not going to be so easy to detail the duties in such rural areas as perhaps it is in urban areas.
I will just cite the example of my own area in the North-East of Scotland, the county of Angus, which under present plans is responsible for the dispersal in the event of the city of Dundee being attacked. In the city of Dundee there are about 2,000 local government employees of one sort or another, but in the county there are not nearly so many, although it is on the county of Angus that the responsibility for taking care of the results of an attack on Dundee will fall. It is the responsibility of the county area to look after this.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I would emphasise the point which the hon. Gentleman has made. If the population of the Gorbals division of Glasgow arrives at Angus he will wish the Russians had come instead.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman deals with this in his usual amusing and entertaining style. The trouble is that his counsel and that of other hon. Members opposite is one of despair—that nothing should be done because the problem is so great. But the greater the problem, the greater the preparations that must be made, therefore I certainly do not agree with his conclusions.
So far as local authorities in the rural areas are concerned, the Under-Secretary

of State for the Home Department said when he opened this debate that the local authorities would still have the responsibility for co-ordinating civil defence matters. This may be all very well in some areas, but in a rural area such as that which I represent, where one county may have 13 different local authorities with certain responsibilities, who is to co-ordinate the work? I put it to the Under-Secretary that we must still have a certain number of full-time civil defence officers to co-ordinate the work of the different local authorities, because if we do not we are going to be left with nothing more than a sham in the way of civil defence organisation and it will be performing no proper function at all because the appropriate co-ordination will simply not be there.
Finally, I should like to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) about redundancies among those at present employed full-time in civil defence. There is concern about what the future holds for them in retraining. Is there any prospect of their being re-employed in local government service? I hope that we shall have an assurance on this point.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: This has been a sad debate about a very grave situation. We on this side of the House approached the debate with great concern, and our concern deepened as we listened to the Minister's speech.
We have all become accustomed to the double-talk with which the Government try to confuse the nation. However, I doubt whether the two voices of the Government have ever been in such conflict as during the last debates about civil defence. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) showed how the Government have reversed their policy and now contradict what they said only a few moments ago. We have also experienced simultaneous contradictions. During the debate on 29th February the Home Secretary tried—[Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to interrupt. I should give way with more alacrity if he had been here to listen to the debate.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: If I had wanted to interrupt the hon.


Gentleman, I should have done so. I was talking to my hon. Friend.

Mr. MacArthur: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will talk a little more quietly and not disturb those of us who are very worried about this serious problem.
On 29th February, the Home Secretary tried to create an illusion of continuing security for the nation. He said:
We have decided to reduce civil defence, but not to abandon it.
But in almost the next breath he declared:
The Civil Defence Corps, with about 59,000 members and a further 10,000 to 11,000 on active reserve; making about 70,000 in all … will have to be disbanded …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1798–9.]
Therefore, the Government are dismissing the 70,000 people who make the civil defence system work. Without them, civil defence is a sham. It is quite wrong for the Government to pretend that we shall be as well protected in future as we were in the past. That is dangerously misleading. We shall lose the people who do the job. With their loss, the credibility of our total defence system is weakened.
I could produce a long catalogue of contradictions, but I will content myself with two quotations from the debate in another place yesterday. The noble Lord the Minister of State said about the Civil Defence Corps and its members:
It is a special kind of service you need, a special kind of people in civil defence, because they are continuously prepared to meet the need which all of us hope will never arise, and you need a special kind of people for that".
The noble Lord was speaking very much with the voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson), who called attention to the quality of people, their continuous training, and so on. That is what the Minister of State said in another place only yesterday. Yet the people who have this continuous preparation are the people whom the Government are to disband this weekend.
The noble Lord showed the irresponsibility of the Government's argument. In considering the risk of nuclear war, he said:
… we cannot … completely exclude the danger of accident or miscalculation."—

[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 27th March, 1968; Vol. 290, cc. 1023–4.]
Today, the Under-Secretary of State said that, in the absence of the civil defence organisation, we were less ready to face a nuclear attack than we have been. He went on to say that it would be foolish to pretend that the situation would not deteriorate. In the face of those admissions, how the Government can proceed with their intention to disband an essential arm of our national defence passes all comprehension.
The hon. Gentleman, in reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), tried to suggest that there was some sort of defence reason for this change. There is no defence reason for it. Indeed, the change is being made in defiance of defence reasons. The only reason is that which the Government have advanced—economy. The fact that this critical defence service is being stripped away from the nation is a tragic consequence of the Government's incompetence in managing the economy.
In the last debate on civil defence, the Home Secretary reminded us about the long list of responsibilities which would still rest on the local authorities. The list of responsibilities set out in the Regulations which we debated last year still stands. It is interesting to remind ourselves of what the Government told us yet again the other day. On 29th February, the Home Secretary said that the local authorities would have to
continue with a certain amount of planning activity of an administrative character and continue to be responsible for instructing and and advising the public, making provision for housing and feeding the homeless and for the first-aid care of casualties … preserve the operational control buildings and their communications …".
These add up to a formidable list of responsibilities. It is quite wrong to pretend that the local authority organisation now will be adequate to fulfil the duties laid on it. First, we are losing completely the voluntary Civil Defence Corps. Secondly, it follows that the weight of responsibility on the local authorities will weigh even more heavily, because there will be no volunteer arm to help them take the load.
But, in the face of that, the Government made it clear that they will cut the number of people in local authorities handling civil defence responsibilities.


That was made frighteningly plain by the Home Secretary on 29th February. He said that there would be
drastic cuts in the numbers of staff employed
by the local authorities
on civil defence duties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1968; Vol. 759, cc. 1804–5.]
The few who remain to carry out these duties will be starved of funds, as many hon. Members have shown. The organisation which remains is totally inadequate to carry through the duties which Parliament has laid on local authorities or to provide anything with meaning for the defence of our people.
These comments apply equally to Scotland as to England and Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) called attention to the special problems which will face rural areas in Scotland, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with them. Perhaps he will also tell us something about the way in which local authority officials in Scotland will be trained in future. We are to have no training centre. I understand that Taymouth Castle is to be closed. I ask the hon. Gentleman for an assurance about the future and that what he says today will still hold good in six or nine months. I ask that because I remember very well requesting information in July last year about training centres in Scotland during a debate on civil defence. Another Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said:
I was asked about the future of Taymouth Castle. It will continue as one of the three Civil Defence training schools in the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Lady the Minister of State for the Home Office at that time, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), said even more categorically about the training establishments:
We have no plans to abolish them. There might be an increased demand for places on courses for members of local authority staffs at the Home Office training establishments as a result of the specific requirement in Regulation 1 that the staff be trained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1967; Vol. 750, c. 2633, 2655.]
That emphasises my point. That Regulation still survives. That requirement

remains on local authorities. The Government at last recognise the extra pressure which there might be for places at training centres. Now the whole lot is to be wiped out, leaving only 60 places at one establishment in England. What sort of provision for training is that? Would the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland tell us how many local authority officers in Scotland will be accommodated at this English establishment? How many local authority officers altogether can be trained there in a full year?
The House will realise from all the speeches that have been made from this side of the House that we all oppose the principle of what the Government propose to do. We also oppose the manner in which they are doing it. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) call attention to this. The Minister quite rightly thanked the Civil Defence Corps, and we on this side join him in expressing our gratitude to those splendid volunteers for all they have done, but, at the same time as he thanked them, he hit them fairly and squarely and firmly on the head. My right hon. and learned Friend has stressed the need to allow members to continue on a voluntary and informal basis, and I hope the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary will say more about this at the end of the debate. The Under-Secretary, in opening the debate today, suggested that these voluntary members could continue to band together for what he described as "social purposes". I presume he meant that by talking together they could keep alive their interest in civil defence, but what he suggests, in fact, is some kind of old comrades reunion, drinking beer together and talking over the old times when at least the Government had a sense of responsibility towards the people they governed.

Mr. Ennals: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. It is unfortunate that he has quoted only part of the sentence. I spoke of social purposes and—although I have not the exact words—about lectures and training as may be appropriate. The hon. Gentleman is quite unfair.

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman is very clearly modifying what he said. He made clear that this would be for social purposes and that they could thus


keep their hand in. Certainly, that was the clear impression he gave. I am glad that he has now modified his statement, and I hope the other Under-Secretary will comment on it; because I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that members of the Civil Defence Corps who continued to band themselves voluntarily in this way would receive no training, no practice and no equipment. This was what the Minister told us. If that is not so, I hope the Under-Secretary will say what facilities will be provided—and this is a very important point—so that these volunteers can continue to serve the nation as they are so anxious to do. It is important that we should have a clear statement on this because tonight is the last chance to keep the services of the thousands of civil defence workers who are anxious to continue their training and their work. Failing a statement by the Government tonight, the Corps will cease to exist by the weekend.
Even the manner of its extinction shows the Government's careless and hurtful treatment of these volunteers. There is to be a Gracious Message, but I presume that that cannot be dispatched until the Regulations are approved—perhaps the Minister can say something on that—and therefore it cannot be received by individual members of the Corps until next week, by which time the Corps will have ceased to exist. It will have been extinguished brusquely, in haste, and with hardly any opportunity even for there to be disbandment ceremonies which so many men and women in the Corps would like to hold. These members of the Corps will retain their uni-form—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the proposition I made that Scotland cannot be defended against any nuclear attack, and will he deny that?

Mr. MacArthur: I intend to speak on that aspect not only in respect of Scotland but England and Wales as well. These volunteers will retain their uniform stripped of badges of rank, a gesture of generosity more fitted to an Uncle Ebenezer than a Government. Their equipment will go into cold store. The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) rightly pointed out that the problems of getting it into service again would be very great. I did not accept

the hon. Gentleman's conclusions from that statement; nor did I at all accept the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barrow in Furness (Mr. Booth), or those of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). The latter hon. Gentleman came into the open in the last part of his speech when he spoke of the opportunity of opting out of the nuclear arms race. That is what he is after; and when he said that, he reminded me of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in the old days.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes pointed out, all hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken so far have assumed that any disaster in the future would be a total nuclear war. Indeed, it might be, but even if it were, there would be a perimeter at which millions of people would be crying out for aid. It might not be a total nuclear war. We might suffer instead from fallout from a Continental country. Has the hon. Gentleman considered that sufficiently? Has he considered that a new war—and heaven forbid that we should ever experience one—could be a war of a more conventional character? My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) vividly illustrated to the House the need in any of those circumstances to have help available quickly to save life. It is that help which the Government are removing from us.
The Government have tried to soften the blow to the Civil Defence Corps by saying that the planning will continue, although there will be no one to carry out the plans. They claim that the equipment could be quickly brought into use again although there will be practically no one to use it. They state, as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary stated on 29th February:
It is reasonable … to believe that there will be an opportunity to build up these services again. It is on that expectation that the Government are basing themselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1968; Vol. 750, c. 1801.]
But how long would it take to build up these services again? The Under-Secretary confessed today that the international situation might deteriorate but said that he did not expect it to do so overnight or in a few days' time. I believe those were fairly precisely his actual.


words. Does he believe that the Civil Defence Corps could be built up again even in a few days' time? Of course not. I am glad he agrees. To rebuild the service would require a year at least, and possibly from our past experience, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries reminded the House, it could take up to three years. One could ask whether it would be possible for the service to be rebuilt at all. I would have thought the prospect of rebuilding a voluntary service of this kind had been substantially diminished by the brusque, unfeeling way in which the Government have treated civil defence members over these last years.
We face a tragic situation. The Government are writing off that part of the civil defence organisation which makes civil defence credible; and with it they are writing off the chance of survival for those on the perimeter of a nuclear disaster, and at the same time removing a voluntary force which has done so much to aid the public at times of civilian disaster. The defence structure that will remain is an ineffective sham and one which we on this side cannot accept.

7.9 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): We have had an interesting debate today on these Regulations, and I do not personally complain that a number of hon. Members should have expressed themselves very strongly about the disbandment of the Civil Defence Corps. In the speech which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made in the House on 29th February, when there was a whole day's debate on this subject, he made it clear that this was a very difficult decision for the Government to take; and he recognised then that inevitably it had caused a great deal of distress and dismay among a large number of people.
Perhaps I might start tonight, therefore, by stressing again that the Government's decision implies no reflection on either the quality of service or the devotion to duty of members of the Corps in the past. We are extremely grateful for their service and for the spirit which Corps volunteers have shown in peacetime emergencies over the years. It is because we recognise the contribution

that has been made by the Corps that we found this a very difficult decision to take. At the same time, it would have been irresponsible of us, in the strict sense of the word, if we had not looked at this section of Government expenditure when, in the last few months, we were looking at other sections. As the Prime Minister said, no sector of Government expenditure was excluded from the review which we have just carried out.
The matter has been dealt with at great length already in the debate on 29th February, and many of the general considerations and strategic arguments affecting the Government's decision were deployed then. In view of that, it was a little disingenuous of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) to pretend that the Government had taken their decision exclusively for economic reasons and had not explained the general strategic, political and military background against which it had been taken. That was explained by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at considerable length on 29th February.

Sir D. Renton: The answer to that is that it was such a flabby explanation.

Mr. Millan: I do not accept that. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman was pretending today that no kind of explanation had been given and that none of these considerations had been taken into account. He is now admitting that they were taken into account, though perhaps he disagrees about the conclusions. I shall say something about that in a moment.
The economic arguments are by no means negligible. The ultimate saving on the decision will be £20 million a year. That is not a negligible figure and neither is it negligible from the point of view of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. After all, they are telling us continually to cut public expenditure. Equally continually, they are reacting vigorously and criticising any decisions that we take, whether in the defence budget or, as in this case, in the disbandment of the Civil Defence Corps.
Again, it seems completely disingenuous for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to pretend that the economic arguments are not important. In fact, there


is not a great deal of difference in principle between the kinds of speeches made by most hon. Gentlemen opposite and the decision that the Government have taken. For example, the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) put it in a way with which I would not disagree, though I disagreed with practically everything else that he said. He said that the Government had an obligation to see that the minimal requirements for adequate civil defence were carried out. That is a way of expressing the situation with which I would agree. So what we are discussing now is whether the Government's prescription of those minimal requirements is the same as that of the hon. Gentleman, for example.

Sir Frank Pearson: When I used the word "minimal", I visualised that there should be, at any rate, some regular trained personnel on the ground. We shall not have them after these Regulations go through. Without them, civil defence will become a farce and completely useless.

Mr. Millan: I understand that argument, but the basis from which the hon. Gentleman started was that we should make the minimal requirements for civil defence. That is not necessarily the attitude adopted by every hon. Member who has spoken.
Again I agree with the hon. Member for Clitheroe, although not exactly with the way that he expressed it, when he said that there was no logical or intellectual answer to the problem. Some of my hon. Friends suggested that either we should have a huge expenditure on civil defence which would provide us with a guarantee of safety, or there should be no civil defence expenditure at all. In any case, the first is completely impracticable, and even a much wealthier country than ours like the United States has found it so. But, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said, it does not necessarily follow that the case has been made out for no civil defence expenditure at all. Certainly I do not accept that conclusion, and nor do the Government.
Equally, I do not accept that we must never change the present arrangements. I am not terribly impressed by the comparison of quotations from speeches made at one time with quotations from speeches

made at some different time. This is a balance of judgment, and there is a developing political and military situation which the Government have had to take into account. It is in the light of that situation and the general assessment that there is no imminent possibility of nuclear attack, in which, incidentally, we have the agreement of the vast majority of people in the country, that we took the decision which was announced on 16th January.

Sir D. Renton: This is very important. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the position in January was different from what it had been in December. We accept that it was different financially, because devaluation had occurred, but in what way did it become different strategically? Did the world become a safer place, or was it just as dangerous a place?

Mr. Millan: With respect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mistaken the point of this. I do not suggest that the situation changed overnight. I have suggested that there has been a developing situation in Europe. We are all extremely glad that it should have been so, and I would have thought that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would consider that the contribution which N.A.T.O. has made to the situation is invaluable.
There has been a developing situation in which the danger of imminent nuclear war has receded. We are all -very glad that that has happened. It having happened, it is right that we should reassess periodically the arrangements in the defence budget as a whole, and the arrangements for civil defence should also be examined from time to time. It is on that basis that the decision was made in January. It was not a simple matter of economic factors being at work.
Despite what right hon. and hon. Gentlement have said, it does not follow that the Government's decision means the complete abandonment of civil defence. Rather interestingly, right hoot and hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested that the decision means that there is no structure of civil defence in the country at all, whereas some of my hon. Friends were complaining that, because the Government's decision had left a structure of civil defence, we ought to get rid of that as well.
There is a structure of civil defence left in the country after the disbandment


of the Civil Defence Corps, and the continuing responsibilities and duties of local authorities, for example, were described at some length by my right hon. Friend 'the Home Secretary in the debate on 29th February, and by my noble Friend the Minister of State for the Home Department in the other place only yesterday. I shall say something about those continuing responsibilities in answer to some of the points raised during the debate.
I was asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon what was to happen to the communications for the control system.
The existing communications will not be affected by the changes which are being made. These physical assets, which have considerable operational value, are being preserved. They consist partly of land lines and partly of point-to-point radios. At the terminals there are teleprinters, switchboards, etc. All that is being maintained, and it was part of the Government's decision that it should be maintained. Similarly, this applies in very large measure to local authority planning. I was asked a number of questions about that—for example, whether information to the public about civil defence remained a responsibility of the local authority. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary again made this point clear in his speech on 29th February. I draw attention in this respect to column 1805.
I was asked whether dispersal arrangements were being preserved. These arrangements are being preserved. I was asked about the training of local authority personnel. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire seemed to imply—I do not know whether he meant to imply it—that the Taymouth Castle Training Centre was somehow a Scottish training centre for civil defence. That is not so. It was a Home Office centre and nothing to do with the Scottish Office. The fact that Taymouth Castle is being closed is irrelevant to the training facilities which will be available to local authority key personnel. These training facilities are being provided at Easingwold on a United Kingdom basis, so local authority staffs in Scotland as well as in England and Wales will have available to them the facilities there.

Mr. MacArthur: The Under-Secretary will not overlook the fact that Taymouth Castle is in Scotland. That was the point I made.

Mr. Millan: I had noticed that Tay-mouth Castle was in Scotland. I have had the pleasure of visiting it. I very much hope that it will be put to good use when it is no longer being used for civil defence purposes. My point remains that the necessary training facilities will be available.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke a good deal about local authority planning and, in particular, about the financial allocations to local authorities. I am not clear yet where he got his figure of 480,000 from. It is an inaccurate figure compared with the figure of £1 million which has already been announced. The figure of £1 million, which includes a number of things as well as staff, which is, I think, what concerns the right hon. and learned Gentleman most, did not include, for example, local authority expenditure on control system staff and communication, anything that has been spent by the fire service, by the police, on warning and monitoring arrangements, water supplies, and so on.
I want to take up the right hon. and learned Gentleman's main point. I think that perhaps he did not sufficiently understand—at least, he did not sufficiently acknowledge; I would not like to attribute a lack of understanding to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has obviously studied this subject with considerable care—that what the Government will be expecting of local authorities will be planning arrangements as distinct from physical preparations. This in terms of expenditure, though not necessarily in terms of human effort, is a good deal cheaper.
Moreover, planning of this kind is in any case largely a matter for heads of departments and other individuals in local authorities rather than exclusively for specialist civil defence staff. We are now discussing the level of staff that will be required for planning purposes with local authorities. We shall consider in the light of these discussions any particular points of difficulty such as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested might arise in certain areas. There is nothing absolutely fixed about


this, but we believe at the moment that the kind of figures we have in mind will be sufficient to allow an adequate job to be done. The right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously disagrees. This is the kind of thing which we shall be discussing with the local authorities.

Sir Frank Pearson: With the abolition of the Staff College and the dispersal of all the technical staff, who will advise the local authorities in the drawing-up of their plans from the broad strategic point of view?

Mr. Millan: It is not a question of the complete dispersal of all training staff. I have already mentioned the retention of Easingwold. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is a good deal of expertise available, as there has been, in the Home Department itself, and in the Scottish Office on matters of this sort. The general point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a matter which we are still discussing with local authorities and we shall certainly take account of any points such as that which he raised.
I was asked about the storage of equipment and whether the arrangements which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department described for England would apply to Scotland. In Scotland they will not be Home Office depots, but I can give the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) the assurance that there will be similar arrangements for the storage of equipment in six Scottish Home and Health Department stores in Scotland.
One of the main points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman concerned training facilities. This point was taken up by a number of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cheadle. There was a suggestion that former members of the Corps might be encouraged to keep together on some kind of informal and voluntary basis and be given training facilities on that basis. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said that we do not wish to discourage informal arrangements of this sort, but I must be realistic here and point out that any really worthwhile training involves staff, equipment and premises, which are matters of considerable expense. I should be misleading the House if I were to suggest that it will be possible to make the kind

of informal arrangements which some hon. Members had in mind and produce really worthwhile training in that way without the expenditure of considerable sums.
Therefore, the Government having taken the decision that this Corps should be disbanded and these savings made, it is certainly not our intention that Exchequer money should be made available for the support of informal arrangements of this sort. Similar arrangements apply to premises. It would certainly be our intention that, with the disbandment of the Corps, premises, training grounds, and so on, should be disposed of, otherwise there would be very little point in making the change, because the savings would not accrue. I thought that I ought to say that frankly to the House so that there is no misunderstanding.
. The situation of the existing staff was one of the most important of the other points raised. This matter was raised particularly by the hon. Member for Clitheroe. The legislative provision for taking care of staffing arrangements in the event of redundancy, paying compensation, and so on, was taken in Section 4 of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act, which we passed only a couple of months ago. The details of the proposed compensation arrangements and regulations will be discussed with the local authority associations and the staff associations concerned. It certainly would be the Government's intention that the arrangements that we make will be on lines similar to those applying to redundancies arising from local government reorganisation. What is more, we certainly intend that any redundancies that have arisen since the Prime Minister's announcement should be subject to any compensation arrangements, even though the final details are not agreed till later, provided that these were genuine redundancies arising out of the announcement which was made by my right hon. Friend then.
There are particular questions, such as the position of temporary staff. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall ensure that all these matters are taken care of. It is certainly not our intention that this reorganisation should be carried through without ensuring that the staff interests are adequately protected.
One or two hon. Members mentioned the possibility of maintaining the Civil Defence Corps for use in civil emergencies. This is an attractive proposition, and I do not mean merely superficially, but when one considers what has happened during emergencies in peacetime in recent years, one realises that although the Civil Defence Corps has been able to play a significant part in them, it has not been an essential service, or anything like an essential one. Our basic dependence—for example, as happened in Glasgow during the hurricane damage recently—must be on the permanent services such as the police force, the fire service, and the ambulance service. The idea of using the Civil Defence Corps for peacetime emergencies, though attractive, is not by itself a conclusive reason for maintaining what is, after all, costing us £20 million a year. This is the sum which we will save by the arrangements set out in the Regulations, and by the other steps that we are taking.
Hon. Members may have noticed that recently the Ministry of Defence has been very much more active in investigating how the regular forces stationed in this country can help, not only during emergencies, but by providing useful services for peacetime civilian purposes, both in this country and overseas. There are a number of interesting possibilities, but they merely add to what I am saying, that for these purposes there is no need to maintain a Civil Defence Corps.

Dr. Winstanley: The need is not so much for a corps to act as a unit, but to maintain a high proportion of trained people throughout the country.

Mr. Millan: I do not dispute that that is an important advantage, but in a peacetime emergency I think that there is something to be said for having organised people, and we have a large number of organised people with the

appropriate skills in our permanent services. I do not dispute the attractiveness of this scheme, but it does not seem to me to be anywhere near conclusive when one considers the general decision that has to be made.

A number of detailed points have been raised, for example, about the Long Service Medal, badges, publications, and so on. Many of these points will be dealt with in the circular which will be sent to local authorities and others if, and when, as I expect they will be, these Regulations are approved by the House. The question of the Long Service Medal is still under consideration, and I promise that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) will receive an answer to his question.

I think that I have dealt with most of the points raised during the debate.

Sir T. Beamish: I raised an important point about N.A.T.O. Only last December the Secretary of State for Defence subscribed to N.A.T.O.'s view that civil defence was of the greatest importance. What happened between December and January when the Government decided to disband the Civil Defence Corps?

Mr. Millan: I dealt with that on a similar intervention earlier in my speech. I say again, and here I echo the sentiment which was expressed earlier, that this is a sad day for the Civil Defence Corps. I recognise the considerable work done by Civil Defence people, and the loyalty and service which they have rendered. Despite that, the Government felt that this decision had to be taken, and nothing that has been said today has convinced me that it is not the right decision for Civil Defence and for the country, and on that basis I commend the Regulations to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 119.

Division No. 102.]
AYES
[7.35 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Boston, Terence
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Albu, Austen
Boyden, James
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Brooks, Edwin
Dell, Edmund


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Dewar, Donald


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dobson, Ray


Binns, John
Carmichael, Neil
Eadie, Alex


Bishop, E. S.
Chapman, Donald
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Blackburn, F.
Coleman, Donald
Ellis, John


Booth, Albert
Concannon, J. D.
Ennals, David




Faulds, Andrew
Kelley, Richard
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lawson, George
Peart, Rt. Hn, Fred


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pentland, Norman


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lee, John (Reading)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Freeson, Reginald
Lipton, Marcus
Probert, Arthur


Gardner, Tony
Lomas, Kenneth
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Luard, Evan
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Gregory, Arnold
McBride, Neil
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Macdonald, A. H.
Sheldon, Robert


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackie, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Hamling, William
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hannan, William
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Harper, Joseph
MacPherson, Malcolm
Slater, Joseph


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Small, William


Haseldirre, Norman
Marsh, Rt. Hn, Richard
Swain, Thomas


Hazell, Bert
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Swingler, Stephen


Heffer, Eric S.
Mendleson, J. J.
Taverne, Dick


Hilton, W. S.
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Horner, John
Millan, Bruce
Tinn, James


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Urwin, T. W.


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Molloy, William
Varley, Eric G.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hoy, James
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wallace, George


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, Roland
Wellbeloved, James


Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hynd, John
Oram, Albert E.
Whitlock, William


Janner, Sir Barnett
Orbach, Maurice
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H 'b' n &amp; St. P 'cras, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Padley, Walter
Yates, Victor


Johnson, James (K' ston-on-Hull, W.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)



Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Judd, Frank
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and




Mr. Ernest Armstrong.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhew, Victor
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Astor, John
Grant, Anthony
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Batsford, Brian
Grieve, Percy
Percival, Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Peyton, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biffen, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pym, Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Ridsdale, Julian


Braine, Bernard
Hawkins, Paul
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Royle, Anthony


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Scott, Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Silvester, Frederick


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hordern, Peter
Smith, John


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hunt, John
Stainton, Keith


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cordle, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Stodart, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Tapsell, Peter


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dance, James
Jopling, Michael
Tilney, John


d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, Peter
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Doughty, Charles
Knight, Mrs. Jilt
Walters, Dennis


Drayson, C. B.
Lane, David
Ward, Dame Irene


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Webster, David


Eden, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Elliot, Capt. Waiter (Carshalton)
Lubbock, Eric
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliott, R. W. (N' c' tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Worsley, Marcus


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper
Younger, Hn. George


Forteseue, Tim
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)



Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gibson-Watt, David
Neave, Airey
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Goodhart, Philip
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Hector Monro.

Resolved,
That the Civil Defence Corps (Revocation) Regulations, 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.

Civil Defence Corps (Scotland) Revocation Regulations, 1968 [draft laid before the House, 29th February] approved.—[Mr. Ennals.]

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that The Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1968.
2. New Towns (Scotland) Act, 1968.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE

7.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Millan): I beg to move,
That the Civil Defence (Fire Services) Regulations 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.

It would perhaps be convenient to discuss at the same time the second Motion, relating to Scotland,
That the Civil Defence (Fire Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.

The Scottish and English Regulations are basically the same. They amend the existing Regulations which were made in 1949 and which placed an obligation upon fire authorities to employ persons for the purpose of civil defence and in particular to enrol auxiliary firemen additional to the normal establishment of their fire brigades. The new Regulations remove this obligation from fire authorities, but enable them to employ additional persons for civil defence purposes when authorised to do so by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary in Scotland and England respectively.

This latter provision is necessary because there are now employed, under the existing Regulations, a number of regular fire service officers, and although most of, them have been employed on helping to recruit, train and organise the auxiliaries,

some have been working on planning for a war emergency. Since planning is to continue, there will be a need to retain the services of some of these officers and the Regulations accordingly provide for the Secretary of State to authorise their continued employment.

It is not my right hon. Friend's intention to authorise the employment of auxiliaries after 31st March, and fire authorities will be required to cease to employ those who are now auxiliary members of their brigades on that date. The auxiliary fire service will thus be disbanded on 31st March.

I hope that there will be no misunderstanding of the term "employed". Auxiliaries, of course, have been recruited as members of individual fire brigades and as such have been, in legal terms, the employees of the fire authorities, but have, of course, received no payment other than the bounty and out-of-pocket expenses for which they can qualify: they are volunteers in the true sense of the term—

Sir Eric Errington: Would the hon. Gentleman explain the last sentence of the Explanatory Note:
This replaces the existing unrestricted power of a fire authority to employ additional persons and in particular auxiliary firemen.
But they can still do so, as I understand it, if authorised by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Millan: I have just been trying, apparently not completely successfully, to explain the distinction between the Auxiliary Fire Service, which is to be disbanded, and the fire service officers, some of whom have a permanent rôle in planning for a war emergency. It is intended that these latter officers will continue to be employed, with the Secretary of State's approval. This does not, of course, give local authorities the power to continue to employ auxiliary firemen—

Sir E. Errington: May I try to get it clear? As I understand it, the Regulations give the Secretary of State authority to make such appointments as he may think fit. What he intends to do is one thing but what the Regulations give him power to do is another, that is, to appoint such people as he may think fit as firemen.

Mr. Millan: I do not think that there is any difficulty about this. I have explained the intention, which is to continue to employ those fire service officers who have been on planning duties, because there is a necessity for their continued employment. I think that the wording is accurate, legally and in every other way, to carry out the intention we have. My hon. Friend who will reply to any points raised by hon. Members will, if he considers that there is any ambiguity, no doubt comment on this later.
The regular officers whose job has been to look after the auxiliaries are employees of the fire authorities and their pay and emoluments have been accepted by the Home Office for civil defence grant at the rate of 75 per cent. The arrangement which has been made with fire authorities is that, should circumstances demand it—as they do now—the officers concerned, of whom there are about 25 in Scotland and perhaps 250 in England and Wales, would be absorbed into the normal establishment of the brigades, as soon as vacancies could be found for them. I hope that this will be possible in all instances, but should it not be practicable in an individual case, the arrangements which have been made for the compensation of other civil defence employees would apply to any displaced fire service staff. I hope that it will not come to this, although it may take a little time to find vacancies for everyone.
As hon. Members know, it is not the intention that all emergency fire preparations will now be abandoned. The regular peacetime fire service will continue to have an emergency rôle and planning and certain other peacetime preparations will continue, though at a reduced level. A review of emergency plans in the light of the new situation has now been put in hand in consultation with representatives of the fire service.
During the last few weeks there have been a number of occasions, both here and elsewhere, when tribute has been paid to the Auxiliary Fire Service. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing once again the sincere thanks of the Government for the generous way in which members of the Service have given of their time and energies in the past. The decision to disband this and the other civil defence volunteer services is not a

welcome one nor one which the Government took lightly. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained to the House on 29th February, it was something which could not be avoided once it had been decided that substantial economies were necessary. In renewing our thanks to the service, I commend the Regulations to the House.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: In the civil defence debate earlier today my hon. Friends called attention to the shocked despair which followed the Prime Minister's announcement earlier this year that the Civil Defence Corps was to be disbanded. The A.F.S. shares this dismay, and a feeling of shock and anger is spreading through the general public, who are coming to realise how the Government are stripping them all of the defence which is their right.
The extent to which this anger is being felt by the public is illustrated by my local experience that about 1,500 citizens of Edinburgh, realising what these Regulations mean to them, subscribed to a statement opposing the Government's intentions. There is a sense of shock about the brusque manner in which the Government are treating the 13,500 fire service volunteers who have given their time and devotion to the protection of us all.
As with civil defence, the Government argue that the cost of the A.F.S. cannot be met and that what they have described as the "insurance premium" is beyond the nation's capacity to pay. I have two comments on that argument. First, the fact that we are being asked to disband the A.F.S. to save a little over £1 million a year demonstrates the depths to which the Government's incompetence has brought us.
Secondly, we are losing this critical insurance cover to save a very small premium. To put it another way, it represents a one-thousandth part, not of Government expenditure in total, but of the increase in Government expenditure proposed for the coming year. Or, to put it yet another way, it represents substantially less than the daily average of £1,800,000 additional taxation which the Government have levied for every day since the Prime Minister took office in


1964—and the House will recall that at that time he promised that there would be no general increase in taxation.
I turn to the nature of the insurance cover which we are losing. First, we have already endangered the credibility of our total defence system, and these Regulations will erode that credibility still further. Secondly, we are removing from the public the life saving protection which the highly trained and skilled members of the A.F.S. would provide in time of war. The A.F.S. also has a peacetime rôle, and this is a continuing bonus which flows from the primary insurance cover. These men are trained by, and are working alongside, established fire service officers. They are skilled in the use of specialist equipment, and this is of particular help in civilian disasters. They have provided valuable assistance to fire brigades and the public in many emergencies involving fire or flood. Their work will be remembered by the people of Aberfan, by the people in the South-West whose livelihood was threatened by the Torrey Canyon disaster and, more recently, by the people of Glasgow, who suffered in the hurricane two months ago. This help will no longer be available because the A.F.S. will cease to exist.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), when I first read the Regulations I, too, thought that a glimmer of hope remained. I again call attention to paragraph (1,a), which gives the Secretary of State power
…to employ such additional persons, if any, as members of the fire brigade for the purposes of civil defence as may be authorised from time to time by the Secretary of State.
The hope aroused in my mind was quickly dispelled because on 8th March the notorious circular went out from the Home Office, followed four days later by one to Scottish local authorities from the Scottish Home and Health Department. Both circulars referred to "such additional persons", but went on to state clearly:
It is the intention of the Secretary of State to direct that, with effect from that date"—
that is, 1st April—
fire authorities should cease to employ auxiliary members of fire brigades.
Nothing could have been more final, or more wounding to the morale of these men, many of whom are ready to go on

serving their country without bounty or recompense but merely for the noble satisfaction of giving voluntary service.
The Under-Secretary thanked the members of the A.F.S. That was the least he could do. We also express our deep gratitude to them and add our deep sympathy for what is happening to them and for the way it is being done. If the Government were genuinely grateful for the work of the A.F.S.—if they really recognised the value of their work to the nation—they would be prepared to reconsider the position even now and allow these men to continue their service, as they have so generously offered to do.
Therefore, I ask the Under-Secretary in his reply to say that the Government will not discourage these volunteers from continuing their training and work on an informal basis, and secondly, that they will allow the fire authorities to provide reasonable facilities for the men to continue their training. After tonight it will be too late. These Regulations will take effect this weekend. Unless we have this clear undertaking now, next Monday will see the A.F.S. disbanded, the men dispersed, the protection lost, and yet another voluntary service suppressed with undignified and shameful haste.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. John Homer: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) spoke of the shock and dismay which swept through the Auxiliary Fire Service and extended from that service to the general public. I fully understand the disappointment that many Auxiliary Fire Service men and women must be feeling as they see the service to which they have devoted so much time now being put into a position which is almost incapable of being accurately defined. I understand and sympathise with their point of view, but I adhere to a view I expressed earlier. The Government, in so far as they have decided to run down the auxiliary fire service in this manner, are right. I persist in my view that they should have gone further.
I want to deal with one or two minor points and hope to get them cleared. With regard to the employment of those officers in respect of whom authority has been given by the Home Office for civil defence duties we have been given a


number tonight by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who moved the Motion. I should have thought that there was very little doubt that these few hundreds of officers would be absorbed in the fire service. I hope that nothing that has been said tonight will be taken by any local authority to suggest that there might be an alternative open to them. These are men who have been promoted and their promotions were agreed by the Home Office. I should have thought there was every possibility that in due course they could be absorbed in the regular fire service. I hope that the qualification my hon. Friend made will not be employed. I hope it will not, and I do not believe it will.
Many regular officers and men will be pleased at the release of resources which the run-down of the A.F.S. is now providing for peace-time purposes. The Home Office training school at Moretonin-the-Marsh, on which the Government have been ready to spend £2 million, much of which was for emergency services, is being released for peace-time services. The regular fire services are delighted that as a result of the winding down of the A.F.S. the number of courses needed to meet the ever-growing need for highly trained fire prevention officers in the peace-time fire service can be met. We are delighted with the expansion of the number of courses which should fill the gap caused by the run-down of the emergency services.
In the peace-time fire service there does not seem to be much of an echo of the shock and dismay which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire said was felt in the A.F.S. I see no evidence of that. It would be placing a false construction on what I have heard about the decision of the Government to say that I have.

Mr. MacArthur: I could allow the hon. Member to see these papers containing 1,000 names of people in Edinburgh and 500 elsewhere.

Mr. Horner: I am not speaking about 1,000 citizens of Edinburgh. I am saying that in the regular peace-time fire service there is little echo of the shock and dismay evidenced by petitioners in Edinburgh or elsewhere. The decision of the Government is welcomed. At a time when every year the country loses nearly £100 million in direct fire losses, it is

imperative to increase the number of trained officers in fire prevention. This facility is now open as a tresult of the decision taken by the Government.
If I may pursue a point which earlier it was suggested I could not then pursue as not being wholly relevant to the Motion before us, I think the decision in disbanding the A.F.S., based upon a reason which has been questioned by hon. Members opposite, nevertheless is facing the realities of the position. I have argued in this House earlier as to what would be the effect of nuclear war. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) suggested that because my first A.R.P. course was 34 years ago, my approach to these matters was somewhat old-fashioned and prewar. I try to keep myself abreast of modern development. I have attended these courses. I have been to Moreton-in-the-Marsh, and I say that the training in emergency fire-fighting is as totally irrelevant to the job of defending the country against the effects of nuclear war as most other aspects of civil defence.
I said that if a normal nuclear instrument of destruction—I do not call it a bomb—were to fall on Westminster, the area of total fire would exend over a diameter of 24 miles. The area of total fire would be something like 300 square miles. In such a situation we would see what has come to be known as a fire storm. We had some experience of fire storms on a miniature scale in the last war. In Hamburg and Dresden in 1946 I saw the effects of fire storms. These were miniature occasions compared with what we would be expecting of the men we have praised tonight for their devotion to public duty. I suggest that we are being totally unrealistic.
I will not occupy the time of the House with details of the sort of occasion that we would ask these men to face in dealing with the effect of a thermonuclear instrument of destruction which would cause such fire storms. Let us assume that my calculation of a diameter of 24 miles of total fire is based upon an instrument of destruction bursting at ground level. If it were to burst a mile above the earth's surface the radius of total fire destruction can be magnified many times. In Hamburg 12 sq. miles were involved in the fire storm, but the firemen could only penetrate up to 200 yards beyond the perimeter. It would be


madness to plan to send fire fighting forces into a fire storm of the size I have indicated, with winds of hurrican force and radioactive dust settling at the same time, and I do not believe that the civil defence planners contemplate such an operation. That is why in the Civil Defence Instructors' Notes, which are still in circulation, note 11 says:
The stirrup hand pump with its bucket of water can play a useful role in any future war.
My criticism of the perpetuation of this myth that the civil defence and the auxiliary fire service can play an effective rôle is not merely based on what I claim. I may seem arrogant, but I have attempted to keep up-to-date with these issues, despite my early A.R.P. training. I think everyone will agree that for these small islands nuclear war would certainly produce an unimaginable disaster which might well lead to their evacuation.
If one instrument of destruction fell on London and another fell on Birmingham at the same time, the perimeter of those two incidents would overlap, and if we had an Auxiliary Fire Service at Northampton it would be difficult to know exactly in which direction to send it.
It is because of the inconceivable horror that nuclear war will bring in its train in terms of the effects of fire that I welcome the decision of the Government.
I sympathise with the feeling of auxiliary firemen. Among my whole time fire brigade associates, who are involved month by month, there is no echo of the dismay and shock which has been mentioned. There is an acceptance of the realisation that auxiliary fire fighting has no place and is irrelevant to nuclear war as we envisage it.

8.15 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I have had an opportunity of listening not only to the present debate, but to the previous one. It appears that hon. Gentlemen opposite are denying those things which we on this side refuse to say. I mean by that statement that the discussion generally, almost without exception, has been on the basis of the horrors of nuclear war. That is beyond contravention. I submit that we have to deal with the position of those people—and there are many in my constituency, many in the

county of Hampshire and many in the country generally—who are anxious to continue with the expertise which they have acquired during years of training and practical work in the elimination of fires and are members of the auxiliary fire service.
When we discussed civil defence it was open to anyone to say, "What will be the thing against which we shall have to defend ourselves?"
Fire which is always with us and is a great and growing danger in the country, and it is a wicked thing that the experience which has been gained over quite a number of years now by the auxiliary fire service should be wasted. I am appalled to think, if my reading of the Regulations is correct, that it is only for the purposes of some senior officers that the authority of the Secretary of State will be exercised. In my opinion, the Secretary of State ought to authorise the employment of those who are on the job as working firemen and are experience in fire fighting.
The question of equipment has already been raised. I understand that in many cases equipment has been taken away from where it was proposed to be used and stored elsewhere. It has been said that fire causes £100 million worth of damage annually. If that is correct, why should equipment, which has value in use by trained auxiliary fire service men, be moved to store?
I have made inquiries regarding the situation in Hampshire. There are 237 regular firemen. I was interested to read and hear about the 752 retained firemen. They are equivalent to 582 on full 24-hours work. I was told that 39 of the 47 stations are staffed by retained firemen, who are not fully employed, and that there are still available some 100 or so places for experienced firemen.
The Government do not like that kind of volunteer, and they dislike the idea of having a force organised in any way other than the way in which they want to organise it. This is very wrong. I have had an opportunity to speak to a number of auxiliary firemen. They have told me that emergency pumps were issued during this year, and they have been presented with uniforms. It was only after I had some information given in the House that I realised that those uniforms, which have only just become available for use,


must not display any badge of rank. This is poor reward for good service.
The service we are discussing now is not like the Civil Defence Corps in the sense that there may be an argument—I do not agree with it, and I do not think on those lines—that civil defence is no use because nuclear warfare would be so terrible. This is not true of fire. Everyone who reads the newspapers knows that, day by day, one can read of little children being left in small houses on their owl and nothing can be done to save them when there is a fire.
I know one small town, or large village, to call it that, in Hampshire where people are desperately anxious to have someone to come and act as fireman. They are unable to get the men. The equipment is not being produced.
The man who spoke to me on these matters said that he was ready and anxious to work without any question of the annual bonus. The letter he sent me ended:
Our eight-man crew has nearly 30 years of accumulated experience. Can the country afford to lose trained firemen like us, with national fire losses at an all-time high?
The present Government think nothing of money and they think nothing of expertise, but any Government ought to ponder words like that from someone who is desperately anxious to serve his country. He told the story of how they put out a bad heath fire in an area close to where I live:
To the public it was the Fire Brigade at work, even though the call had been answered by a green fire engine, the crew of which 24 hours before had included a butcher, a G.P.O. engineer, a motor mechanic, a computer programmer, a crane driver and a sales representative.
I hope that the instruction given under the terms of the Order goes wider than has been suggested. If the terms are wide enough, it is of vital importance that the Secretary of State should consider whether he ought to authorise, in addition to the 250 men of superior rank, a considerable number of men of lower rank whose service is acknowledged and appreciated.

8.24 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: A few sentences should be sufficient to express my views on this melancholy Measure. If we must have the funeral, let us get it over quickly.
I agree with the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) in saying that the subject of this Order is very different from civil defence generally, in regard to which there is arguable territory. I do not accept the view that all we can hope for is either total war or absolute peace, but I accept that there is arguable territory on the subject of civil defence. Here, however, we are dealing with an organisation, the Auxiliary Fire Service, which has a valuable and necessary civil rôle.
I am astonished that the Government have thought it necessary to take this step. We are not, as the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) suggested, arguing for the Auxiliary Fire Service to be allowed to continue precisely as it has always been, that it must have precisely the same functions as when originally set up. Listening to the hon. Gentleman one might have thought that we were recommending that we must find fires for the auxiliary firemen—in other words, that there must be a war in order to justify their existence. We are not saying that at all.
I accept that in many ways their training may need changing and the planning of the auxiliary fire service might be reconsidered. I should be willing to support the Government in any steps they wished to take to reshape or redirect this organisation so as to give it what the House might regard as more profitable functions. It cannot be said authoritatively that everything it now does is obsolete or ought to be changed, but I accept that some aspects need to be changed. However, having accepted that, we cannot go on to accept the hon. Gentleman's solution, which is to abolish it.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was cause for satisfaction in the Government's proposal because, in some curious way which I did not fully understand, the closing down of the Service would release resources. I must dispute that. Once they are lost, it seems to me that many of those people will never be found again.

Mr. Horner: The fact is that the Emergency Fire Service Training Centre at Moreton-in-Marsh has now, to an extent, been switched over to civil fire service purposes, and its resources are


being used to train more fire prevention officers.

Dr. Winstanley: What the hon. Gentleman is now saying is that although it is claimed that money will be saved, there will be no saving and that the Minister will still be spending the money but in a different way. That is a totally different argument. The whole justification for the measure is, we are told, that we shall save so many pounds. Now the hon. Gentleman says that we shall still spend that money.

Mr. Horner: I am sure that when my hon. Friend winds up he will make the position clear. So that we do not become more confused, I should explain that Moreton-in-Marsh is the Emergency Fire Service Training Centre. At the same time, a limited part of it has been scheduled for peace-time services. The rundown of the A.F.S. means that that limited part can be extended, and that is a good thing.

Dr. Winstanley: This confusion is causing me to take rather more sentences than I had expected. At least it brings me to my point, that there is a clear civil rôle for the Auxiliary Fire Service. It is extraordinary that the Government are not planning for that. We should be listening to the Government's plans for the use they will make of the Auxiliary Fire Service to get better value for money, rather than hearing plans for not spending the money and not having the service.
I put the point to the hon. Gentleman in correspondence. I suggested to the Home Secretary that the Auxiliary Fire Service should be retained in order to be employed in a civil rôle to do valuable work for which there was a clear need. The interesting part of the reply sent to me by the hon. Gentleman on 29th February was:
By agreement with the Fire Brigades Union and local authorities, auxiliaries are enrolled as members of brigades solely to train for a war emergency and their service in peacetime is limited to such duties as are desirable for their training. For this purpose, many fire authorities allow auxiliaries to obtain first hand experience by accompanying their regular colleagues to peacetime fires and to other incidents. Such attendances, however, are solely for training purposes and it would be quite wrong for a fire authority to allow auxiliaries to be used in substitution for whole-time or part-time firemen in providing peacetime fire cover.

Why? When the hon. Gentleman says "solely for training purposes" is he saying that they are no use? He is not, because he has often said how useful they are. He has paid tribute to them for their valuable service. Saying "solely for training purposes" is misleading. They are useful, and have been useful in the past.
The hon. Gentleman's other point was that it would be quite wrong to allow them to be used
in substitution for whole-time or part-time firemen …
But they are not in substitution of anybody who exists, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Fire service establishments are below strength all over the country. The hon. Gentleman told me that in answer to a series of Questions not long ago. They are substituting for empty spaces which the Minister cannot fill.

Mr. Horner: We are moving away from the question of civil defence. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it is practicable to employ Auxiliary Fire Service volunteers to make up deficiencies in the strength of whole-time firemen, he is attempting the impossible. That cannot be worked in the fire service.

Dr. Winstanley: The hon. Gentleman must not pretend that the debate is about anything other than the abolition of the Auxiliary Fire Service. I am saying that it is a mistake to abolish it, and unnecessarily to do away with very valuable work which is offered virtually free of cost. If its present use is not as valuable as it should be, the Minister should look for a new use for it, rather than abolishing it.
The reason for abolishing it is said to be cost. The hon. Gentleman said in his letter that in 1968–69 the total cost of the Auxiliary Fire Service would have been about £1·3 million. That does not seem to me to be very much. He went on:
The main burden of expenditure arises from the need to provide staff within the regular fire service to undertake the training of auxiliaries (28%)"—
But he told us that most of these people will be absorbed into the regular fire service, so he will not really make the savings—
and the provision of buildings (23·4%)"—


but they will have to work in the same buildings; the buildings will not be knocked down or sold—
and equipment (22·3%)."—
but that is equipment which already exists, or, if it does not, equipment which is needed.
This nation is suffering severely from fire damage. The problem has increased year by year for many years. The cost is now £10 million a month, not counting the losses due to loss of production. Here are involved a number of people who are capable at very small cost of assisting us in combating this problem, and the Government appear to be abandoning them. It seems to me a stupid measure and I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State has had to come in and pay tribute to these people. I wonder who the Government are going to pay tribute to next, for tribute seems to be the prelude to abolition. Who is next? Perhaps it will be the Land Commission.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: In the arguments between the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) I find myself on the side of the hon. Member for Cheadle. The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen had difficulty in describing the state of the A.F.S. when the Order is passed. He searched for a word. I find that strange. I can give him the word. It is the simple word "extinction".
The hon. Member wished that the Government had gone further. They could have gone very little further. They are removing the whole voluntary backing which the fire services enjoyed. How one can go further, I cannot imagine. The substance of the argument of the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen was that there would be some release of resources which would be of positive benefit to the fire services. I believe that he is wrong. When questioned and needled by the hon. Member for Cheadle, he produced as a great achievement a school at Moreton-in-Marsh.

Mr. Horner: Far from being needled by the hon. Member for Cheadle, I gave, as an example of the release of resources, the Moreton-in-Marsh training school.

Mr. Worsley: Certainly and the hon. Member has now repeated it. But he produced no further evidence to suggest that there was a releasing of resources. The truth is the opposite. The truth is, as the Under-Secretary of State said in his letter, that these auxiliary firemen, in the course of training, have been at fires and have done a useful job in helping the regular brigades on these occasions.
They do a useful job not only at fires but at disaster scenes. At the rail disaster at Harrow Weald, for example, they did an exceedingly useful job. Of course, they did not do the most dangerous work. The regular forces must do that. But many things have to be done on such occasions which do not need the skill of regular firemen or involve the dangers which regular firemen as part of their training are equipped to tackle. There are also jobs to be done after the fire—for example, to watch against a recrudescence of the fire while the regular firemen can go elsewhere. Far from releasing resources, this proposal will limit the capacity of the regular fire brigades to do their jobs. That is clear.
We have been told that 250 officers are to continue to be employed on planning for wartime fire measures and will be gradually absorbed into the regular establishment of the fire services. If that is so and these men are still to work on planning for wartime eventualities, then by that number the establishment of the fire services will be effectively reduced. I understand that these men will be kept on the job that they are now doing as auxiliary firemen and moved, as and when it is possible, on to the establishments of the regular fire service. It must follow that, when they are doing the existing job on the existing establishment, they are keeping out someone else. If that is not logical, I do not know what is. If that is not so, why is the establishment not being increased by this number which would be the logical solution?

Sir E. Errington: Is not the position that the Secretary of State is not prepared to allow auxiliary firemen to be employed? Once this comes to an end, as it will do, the men will not be employed at all on fire work.

Mr. Worsley: We were told by the Under-Secretary that about 250 in


England would continue to be employed, and that this was the reason for the phrase empowering the Secretary of State to exclude a certain number from the general extinction. This is quite a large number and we should know the answer to this question.
There is an overwhelming case for voluntary support for the regular fire service. My researches into the opinion of the regular firemen have had exactly the opposite result to those of the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen. Rather to my astonishment—since I could understand it if regular firemen found volunteers rather a nuisance—I have found that they value these voluntary services and that their passing is much regretted. The hon. Member is perhaps thinking of old prejudices rather than the present situation.
There is an unanswerable case for this voluntary support, and it is difficult to understand why, if there is no question of abolishing the Special Constabulary, there is not an equally good case, on logical grounds alone, for maintaining a voluntary background to the fire service. This, of course, is not the only reason, although it is convincing enough. It is necessary, as part of our general civil defence precautions, to have a fire service which is expandable through voluntary effort.
I am sorry to quote the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen so often, but he has laid himself open, and if he goes on one of those courses again, he should listen more carefully. Surely he realises that even if this unimaginable disaster were as bad as he described, there would still be areas where help could be given. To talk about sending the auxiliary firemen into the area of main damage is wholly to miss the point, since there will be areas outside those of main damage where thousands of lives could be saved.
This is only half the story, because the objective of nuclear weapons and civil defence is not to use them but to prevent their use. This has been understood by every party until this proposal. The fact of the matter is that one must have a convincing power at one's disposal which prevents the other side attacking. I realise that there are hon. Gentlemen—the hon.

Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) is one—who have never accepted this argument, but until the Prime Minister came to the Box in January the official Labour Party had always accepted the facts, because these are the facts.
The fact is that, purely as a money saver and a political sop to the Left wing of the Labour Party, they are throwing this away. The Labour Party has built in to its ethos a profound dislike for voluntary effort. Therefore, when there is a chance to cut one thing or another, it is the element of voluntary effort that will be cut. This is a sad day for this country, because there is an absolutely unanswerable case, both as part of civil defence precautions against war and in terms of civil need, for the maintenance of the auxiliary fire service.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: It is not very often that I find myself in this House so wholeheartedly in agreement with a spokesman of the Liberal Party and so wholeheartedly in disagreement with spokesmen of the Labour Party as I am with regard to what certain members of the Labour Party have said on this particular issue tonight. We have had some strange speeches from the opposite side today. The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Homer) persisted in talking about fire storms. In the earlier debate we had a speech from the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who was advocating a national euthanasia corps to destroy us before we were all killed by a nuclear exchange. What is so tragic—and this has been displayed by Members on that side and by one or two others—is that they seem to accept the inevitable in a hangdog manner. When our nation gets to that state and when it has been knocked down and will not get up and dust itself off and sort itself out, which is what they advocate, we are really in a tragic position.
The hon. Members on the other side both made at least one major mistake in their estimates in that they both assumed without any question whatsoever that the only need for a Civil Defence Corps or an Auxiliary Fire Service would be at the time of a major nuclear exchange. That is a complete and utter fallacy. We on this side know full well what would be the work of an Auxiliary Fire Service if that


tragic event ever occurred, but we know even better that there have been many cases in the past—and could well be many occasions in the future—when a useful, well trained Auxiliary Fire Service has been invaluable to this nation.
Who is to say that the next war, if there is one and if we are in it, is going to involve a major nuclear exchange? The Minister on the Front Bench in this debate today and the other Minister three weeks ago have stated, quite correctly in my opinion, that the world is perhaps moving towards a more tranquil state as regards the parts of it in which we dwell, but that is because the nuclear weapons which both sides possess in some terrifying balance have become so tremendous that no thinking man can believe for a moment that they will ever be used. If this process of evaluation continues we may well reach the stage in a few years time at which we are faced with an attack by conventional weapons, in which case the necessity to maintain the network of a good auxiliary fire service would be indisputable.
The hon. Member opposite who spoke a moment or two ago would not refer to the disbandment or, in the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), the extinction of the Auxiliary Fire Service. He tried to put it in honeyed words by saying it was a rundown. It is nothing of the sort. Do not take my word for it; take the word of the Home Secretary who, on 29th February, referred to the "disbandment" of the Civil Defence Corps. The Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, in the same debate, referred to the "disbandment" of the Auxiliary Fire Service. This is not a rundown. It is a complete and utter disbandment of a valuable structure.
I had a rather dusty answer from the Minister at Question Time today about the cost of maintaining the Auxiliary Fire Service in which about 14,000 members are employed. He told me that the cost of running the service is about £1 million, or a little over. I put to him, as I put now, the fact that the Auxiliary Fire Service, through their secretary, have volunteered to work without any pay, bonuses, or subsistence and even to pay their own travelling expenses if they are allowed to stay together and maintain

their camaraderie and perform their present useful service. That offer was declined by the Minister, who said that not a very big proportion of the total cost was devoted to pay.
There are, however, many other considerations upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) touched. The annual fire bill for this nation is getting on for £100 million. Last year it was just over £80 million. Last year the Auxiliary Fire Service rendered useful help on several occasions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea said, there were a number of national disasters—train crashes, the "Torrey Canyon" and various other occasions when the service played a very useful part.
We are talking of literally nothing compared with out natonal defence expenditure. We are spending about £2,000 million a year on defence. To maintain the auxiliary fire service in its present form would cost only about one-twentieth of 1 per cent. of the national defence bill. Earlier, we had a debate about the merits of the Civil Defence Corps and the valuable work it is doing. I should like to put a couple of questions to the Minister, repeating those sent to him by the secretary of the British Fire Services Association and to which he has not replied.
I have a letter from the secretary who makes it clear, notwithstanding what has been said by hon. Members opposite, that all the members of the Auxiliary Fire Service are dismayed at the Government's decision. They are all disturbed about it and wish it to be reconsidered. One question put by the secretary in a letter to the Home Secretary this month was whether he would give an undertaking that when the Government's financial position improved—and assuming that one day, perhaps in the not too distant future, it will improve and there will not be the necessity to cut down on every penny we spend—this trained and disciplined body of men and women will be reformed. Even if the Minister does not consider that a suggestion which he can accept, I ask him to reply to the secretary of the Association, who is still awaiting an answer to the letter which he sent to the Minister a month or so ago.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire


(Mr. MacArthur) winds up he will give a pledge that when the Conservative Party returns to office in the fairly near future this valuable network of dedicated and unselfish people will be resuscitated and that they will be allowed to play again their very useful rôle.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur: By leave of the House, perhaps I may make three points at the close of this debate. I will make one comment on the question just asked by my hon. Friend, will put one question to the Minister, and finally will make a point which may be helpful to hon. Members waiting to take part in the next business before the House. In replying to my hon. Friend I would remind him that, faced with this sudden and brusque decision by the Government to extinguish two major voluntary services in Britain, my right hon. Friends have set up a policy committee to study a framework for voluntary work of the kind which the Government are trying to abolish tonight.
I now ask the Minister a question and I shall be grateful if he can deal with it in his reply. I believe that the Government have expressed a hope that members of the Auxiliary Fire Service will become part-time firemen; but of course they can do so only if they can fill vacancies on the existing establishment. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many vacancies there are and to what extent they can provide opportunities for the Auxiliary Fire Service. If there are no vacancies their services will not be used, their expert knowledge will be wasted, and their desire for voluntary service will be frustrated.
We have made our strong protest against the Government's intention to disband the Auxiliary Fire Service. We feel as strongly about this as we do about disbanding the Civil Defence Corps, but having voted so recently on that we will not take up time by asking the House to divide again now.

8.58 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): I would have liked to conclude by saying that this had been a good debate, but I am afraid I cannot do so, for I do not think it has been. There has been a great deal of exaggeration and a build-up of feeling without much justification. The

hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) suggested that the attitude of the Government reflected their profound dislike of voluntary effort. He must himself know that that is nonsense. Certainly, I myself have been involved in voluntary service and voluntary organisations for most of my life, including civil defence work many years ago. But the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) spoke about shock and growing anger, as if the national were up in arms over this issue. I do not think he is right at all. I do not believe that he really thinks it is. That was really a political intervention.
I believe that the general public, first of all, recognise the service that has been rendered by the auxiliary fire service in a number of ways on which I want to touch; and secondly, they recognise that the national situation has, as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire said, been gradually moving towards more tranquil times; and they recognise, therefore, that the danger is reduced. But the people also recognise the need for economy in public expenditure, and that this is one contribution to that. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that it is only a small part but it will result, by 1971–72, in a total saving on emergency and fire services of about £2·3 million. Sums such as this cannot be brushed aside.
I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner), who has devoted most of his life to the fire service. Of all hon. Members, he knows what he is talking about, from the standpoint of a lifetime of experience.
The first question raised concerns the 250 regular members of fire brigades who are employed by fire authorities either full-time or part-time additional to the normal establishment of brigades. They are employed purely for civil defence purposes. Almost all of them perform duties concerned with the recruitment, training and organisation of the A.F.S. The additional cost of their pay and emoluments is accepted for payment of civil defence grant.
These 250 men will not in future be required for the functions that they have carried out. We hope that almost all of them will be absorbed by regular fire brigades as peacetime vacancies become available. I can assure my hon. Friend


that our expectation is that there will be hardly any, if any at all, of the 250 officers who will find themselves redundant, though it may take some months before they are absorbed into the right places within peacetime fire brigades.
Only about 10 officers will be authorised to be employed full time on emergency planning. In part, this is an answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington). They will assist regional fire commanders designate in planning operations.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the important matter of equipment. In general, A.F.S. appliances will be withdrawn to Home Office stores over the next few months. However, where a fire authority has some special reason for retaining an emergency appliance, we propose to give the authority an opportunity to acquire the appliance or possibly rent it for a limited time. The terms on which purchase or lease will be arranged are still under discussion with the local authority associations and, shortly, fire authorities will be invited to say whether they wish to retain any emergency appliances on these terms.
A good deal has been said by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and the hon. Member for Aldershot about the peace-time rôle of members of the A.F.S. It is apparent that there is some misunderstanding and confusion which I am anxious to get clear. A letter has been quoted. I stand by every word of it. The authority given to local authorities to recruit the A.F.S. and maintain it is in preparation for a wartime situation. The fact that they ride on fires on some occasions is not to fulfil the obligation to provide fire cover which lies with the local authority and the fire brigade. They are there for training purposes, though it is not suggested that they have not rendered useful service on many occasions. During the past year, auxiliaries in 99 out of 132 brigades performed standby duties; that is, they were on call at fire stations to accompany the regular brigade to fires and other incidents. The total number of auxiliaries who volunteered to make themselves available in that way was 2,515 out of a total strength of about 14,000.

Sir E. Errington: Has the hon. Gentleman any figures about retained men?

Mr. Ennals: I will come to retained men in a moment. I was about to say that I thought that the hon. Gentleman was confused about the rôle of auxiliaries and that of retained men. At the moment I am talking only about members of the A.F.S. and the fact that quite a small and useful proportion of them have accompanied regular fire brigades in dealing with fires.
In all instances, the appliance manned by the auxiliaries is in addition to and not in substitution for any part of the scheduled attendance by the regular brigade. It is recognised by all authorities that their responsibility for providing fire cover lies on the regular brigades. It would be wrong if anything said in his House should lead members of the public to think that the dangers of fire and the ability of fire brigades to cope with them had been lessened as a result of the ending of the A.F.S.
The hon. Members for Aldershot and for Perth and East Perthshire asked about retained men. A substantial number of firemen are on a retained basis. They are not full-time firemen. They are on immediate call to deal with fire situations, particularly in country areas, though not only in country areas. There are vacancies in some areas for retained men. It varies from local authority to local authority. Many of the retained men are either members of the A.F.S. in their voluntary capacity or have come in as retained men because of interest aroused through the A.F.S., or the other way round. Therefore, many of the A.F.S. men will have the opportunity, if they wish, of applying to become retained firemen. I emphasise that the standard of training for retained men is on a par exactly with the full-time firemen. This cannot be said of the A.F.S., who do not have anything like the stringent degree of training which applies to retained men.

Mr. MacArthur: Could the Under-Secretary tell us, if only approximately, how many vacancies there are? We shall then be able to judge to what extent this can provide satisfaction for the voluntary spirit of the 13,500 members of the A.F.S.

Mr. Ennals: I am sorry, but I cannot give the figure off the cuff. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and give him the figure. I will indicate the extent to


which it varies in different parts of the country. The majority of firemen are full-time and not retained.
I want to deal briefly with the other aspects of peacetime work, namely, national disasters. Reference has been made to a contribution which has been made by the A.F.S. I want to put the facts and the country's indebtedness clearly on record. Help was given by the A.F.S. at Aberfan, where 106 auxiliaries from surrounding areas, and an unknown number from other areas such as Luton, Kent, Cornwall and Yorkshire, worked on the scene. Many others stood by in different parts of the country but were not called on to help. On the occasion of the loss of the "Torrey Canyon", 250 auxiliaries from Devon worked over two days of the Easter holiday. After the first three days, the regular fire service carried the burden, helped from time to time by 36 auxiliaries from Cornwall. At the scene of the aircraft crash at Stockport 24 auxiliaries gave assistance. At the rail crash at Hither Green 11 auxiliaries worked with the regular services. All this has been extremely useful service.
I do not think that we should get this matter out of proportion. I pay absolute tribute to the men who gave that service voluntarily at that time, but let no one imagine that somehow or other the job would not have been done and the service would not have been provided if it had not been for the A.F.S. It would be wrong to give that impression. This matter must be seen in proportion. The peacetime benefits which have accrued from the existence of the A.F.S. could not possibly by themselves justify the retention of the service in its present form, with the scale of expenditure that this would entail, particularly since the sole raison d'étre of the A.F.S., and the money provided for it derived from its wartime function.
I want to conclude by paying tribute to these men. They have given valuable service. I hope that some of them will find their way to become retained firemen and that some may become full-time

firemen. Others may find the opportunity for service in other voluntary organisations. It is absurd to suggest that we do not recognise the importance of voluntary service.
The hon. Gentleman began a very over-heated speech by referring to "double talk". We have had a good deal of double talk during the course of the evening. It is double talk, first, to suggest that somehow or other the country will be left undefended as a result of the passing of these Regulations and of the ones which the House has just approved. That is an absurd exaggeration. More than that, it is an insult to the police, the regular Fire Service, the medical service, the Armed Forces, and other voluntary organisations: it is as if they do not exist in the sphere of the defence of Britain.
It is double talk to which we have all become accustomed. The Opposition make constant demands for savings on public expenditure, but every time there is a measure of saving they attack it. This is double talk of the first order. I believe that the country accepts the need for economy and the fact that the international situation makes this decision possible. I believe that the country as well as the House will accept the decision taken by the Government.

Mr. Farr: The hon. Gentleman has not replied to the point which I raised. If this country gets out of its present financial mess, will the A.F.S. be reestablished?

Mr. Ennals: It is always unwise to start making prophecies in unforeseen situations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Civil Defence (Fire Services) Regulations 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.

Civil Defence (Fire Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1968 [draft laid before the House, 29th February], approved.—[Mr. Millan.]

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

9.11 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill proposes that legal effect in the United Kingdom should be given to certain agreed changes in the administrative arrangements of the Commonwealth telecommunications partnership.
This partnership can be said to date from the end of the last century when the Governments of Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and some of the Australian States, took the then radical step of agreeing to construct a submarine telegraph cable across the Pacific. The partnership continued and developed, and now covers the operation of telegraph cable and radio links used for external telecommunications by all but four Commonwealth countries.
This commercial partnership, which now operates under the Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreements of 1948 and 1963, is a fine, but unfortunately little publicised, example of how Commonwealth countries can work together. It is now advised by a Commonwealth Telecommunications Board, and it is this Board which is referred to in Clause 2. The Board, which has its own secretariat, is a standing body of representatives of the partner Governments, and meets not less frequently than once a fortnight in London. Under a number of distinguished chairmen, of whom the present Chairman is Sir Dawson Donaldson of New Zealand, it has served the partnership extremely well.
However, times change, and the Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference held in London in 1966 concluded that the Board had fulfilled, and continued to fulfil, a very useful function, but that in view of the increased size and complexity of Commonwealth telecommunications and of the rapid development of telecommunications technology, there was a need to review the existing arrangements. The Conference was also aware that many of the more recently-joined partner Governments had been

unable to spare an official with telecommunications knowledge and experience to reside permanently in London. The Conference therefore recommended that the Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreements should be terminated and that the Board should be dissolved.
In place of the existing organisation, there should be a new Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation with a constitution of which a copy was laid before the House on 1st March in Cmnd. 3547. For the purposes of the Bill, the important provisions of the proposed constitution are that the advisory and consultative functions of the Board should be transferred to a Commonwealth Telecommunications Council.
This will consist of senior, serving telecommunication officials residing in their own countries meeting not less frequently than once a year. This dispersed Council should be served by a Commonwealth Telecommunications Bureau or Secretariat, in London. It is this Bureau referred to in Clause 1. All Commonwealth Governments have agreed to these recommendations. They consider that the disadvantages of dispersing the advisory and consultative body in this way will be more than compensated for by the fact that all partner Governments will be represented on the Council, and the Council representatives will be in much closer contact with their Governments, because they will in many cases be the officials responsible to those Governments for external telecommunications.
With the greatly improved telecommunications facilities available, these Council representatives should find no difficulty whatever in consulting each other between meetings. In any changeover from one system to another there is a need for an overlapping period. In this case the new Council has already been established and it is proposed to set up the Bureau not later than October of this year. Between them, these two bodies will by stages take over the functions of the Board, and it is expected that the Board will be able to transfer its functions and wind up its affairs by the end of March, 1969. It will then be dissolved.
Turning to the Bill, Clause 1 provides that the Commonwealth Telecommunications Bureau, when established in London,


should have the capacity of a body corporate. This will enable the Bureau, through the general secretary at its head, to enter into contracts, to rent or purchase accommodation, to obtain supplies and services and to engage staff and so on. Clause 2 provides for the repeal of Sections 1 and 2 and the first Schedule of the Commonwealth Telegraphs Act, 1949, under which the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board was established as a body corporate. I should add by way of explanation that Section 3 of the Act has already been repealed and that the remaining stages of the Act do not concern the Board. Since the Bureau and the Board will exist together for six months, and the Board will need to remain a body corporate until its dissolution, it is proposed that Clause 2 of the Bill should not come into force until after the Board has been dissolved.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braise: This Bill had a very easy passage in the other place. Its Second Reading was disposed of in 15 minutes and the Committee stage and Third Reading were formalities. No one, at any stage, seems to have asked any questions. It is obviously not a very controversial Measure. However, while I am sure that the House is grateful to the Under-Secretary for his clear and interesting exposition, there are a few observations I would like to make.
We on this side of the House join with the hon. Gentleman in paying a tribute to the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board, which under the Bill is to become the Commonwealth Telecommunications Bureau. The Board has served the Commonwealth well. It is no secret that those of us on both sides of the House who are dedicated to the idea of the Commonwealth, have been disturbed by the growing attitude of indifference and even hostility towards it, not only in this country but across the world. Yet it remains the only organisation of nation States which is located in every continent, which embraces every section of the human race, and which bridges the gulfs which unhappily divide mankind. Despite occasional differences, setbacks and disappointments, it is still the best example in the world of how free nations can live, work together and

co-operate together for the common good.
There are many ways in which that co-operation is facilitated. There are the links of commerce, the assistance we give one another through technical aid programmes, the links which promote interest and understanding between doctors, lawyers, engineers and other professional men, the links of culture and of the English language, and not least the link between Parliamentarians which is provided by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of which you, in this country, Mr. Speaker, are the President.
To preserve and strengthen these links there are a host of Commonwealth organisations. They receive precious little publicity. The work that they do is not particularly newsworthy. I am sorry to say that it is crime, disaster and misfortune, the sensational, the unusual and the shocking, that command the headlines. The normal, continuing, quiet and patient work of organisations designed to facilitate growth and understanding and co-operation in a still divided world goes largely unnoticed, unhonoured and unsung.
Yet the work of these organisations, such as the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board, and a score more we could name, is a vital element in the task of holding together this unique organisation which we call the Commonwealth and of promoting the interests of its members. The Commonwealth Telecommunications Bureau, as it will become when the Bill is passed, is perhaps one of the most important of these organisations, providing as it does the means of encouraging the flow of information across the world. I wish to make it plain that my hon. Friends and I fully agree with the changes proposed in the Bill, which flow from the recommendations of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference held in March, 1966. However, it is one thing to take steps to facilitate communications. It is another to ensure that they are properly used.
I recall what was said by a great Victorian man of letters about 100 years ago when the telegraph cable was first laid between this country and India. When told that it was the wonder of the age and that it would enable messages to be flashed across the world from the hub


of the Empire to its outermost provinces, he replied, "Interesting, but what have you to say to India?"
What use is to be made of this wonderful system of telecommunications which the Commonwealth now possesses? I pose this question because it was particularly unfortunate that the Government should have increased the rate for Commonwealth Press cables from 1d. to 3d. last September. When the decision was announced in April of last year, it was widely feared that this would reduce the flow of information between Britain and the Commonwealth. I do not know whether that has happened. I recognise that the Government took the view that the G.P.O. had been subsidising Commonwealth Press telegrams for too long. I agree that other Commonwealth Governments—not all of them, it should be remembered—followed suit.
But the fact remains that that decision was taken and it was strongly criticised throughout the Commonwealth. It was criticised because it did not appear to have been discussed with the Commonwealth Secretariat. It was criticised at the Annual Conference of the Commonwealth Press Union. It was criticised because the increase would bear most heavily on the smaller Commonwealth countries. I believe that I am right in saying that Mr. Vincent Fairfax, Chairman of the Australian section of the Commonwealth Press Union, described it as "a bad and unimaginative decision—retreat from the wider world of common interest." Mr. Ross Munro, Chairman of the Canadian section of the Commonwealth Press Union described the decision as "a rude shock" and said:
It does not make any economic sense, for the British will probably lose revenue rather than gain.
Mr. Khalilur Rahman, Chairman of the Pakistan section of the Commonwealth Press Union said:
The increase will hit hard all newspapers in the Commonwealth.
Then there was a protest from the Nudge Committee sponsored by the Royal Commonwealth Society drawing attention to the fact that cheap, subsidised material was being offered to editors in India and

Pakistan by China, Czechoslovakia and Russia in order to exploit the situation.
This was a bad decision. The Government's policy in the economic field forcing them to cut expenditure, often of a desirable kind, has had many results which are not immediately apparent, and this I am afraid has been one of them. May I say in passing that, in my view, is was most unfortunate that the Commonwealth Secretariat were not consulted before the decision was taken. The excuse for this has been given in another place. It was very lame.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know of the hon. Member's devotion to the Commonwealth, and we are discussing the Commonwealth Telecommunications Bill, but he cannot on this Bill debate the Commonwealth, telecommunications and bureaux in general. He must keep within the scope of the Second Reading.

Mr. Braine: Of course I entirely agree, Mr. Speaker. I merely wish to observe in passing that it is one thing to provide telecommunications and another thing to make effective use of them in the interests of providing information to the Commonwealth. I shall not pursue the matter except to say that I hope in future, whether in telecommunications or in any other field of Commonwealth interest, there will be fullest consultation with the Commonwealth Secretariat before such decisions are announced.
Having said that, I welcome the Bill. I am delighted that the Council of the new organisation is obliged to meet annually, and that a full conference will take place normally every three years with powers to make recommendations in the telecommunications field to Governments. For our part we hope and trust that the new bureau and the new Council will continue the good work of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board and that the new structure will add to the effectiveness of that work. We therefore wish the Bill a speedy passage.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — CONSULAR RELATIONS BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Clause 4.

(CIVIL JURISDICTION RELATING TO RE MUNERATION OR CONTRACT OF SERVICE OF MASTER OR MEMBER OF CREW OF SHIP.)

9.27 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 4, after 'master', insert 'or commander'.

Mr. Speaker: As is my custom, I have had posted notice of the Amendments that I have selected on consideration. With this Amendment we can discuss the following Amendments: Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 5, after 'ship', insert 'or aircraft'; Amendment No. 5, in Clause 5, page 4, line 24, after 'port', insert 'or airport'; Amendment No. 6, in line 24, after 'sea', insert 'or in the air'.

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) will remember that in Committee he and other hon. Members raised the question of aircraft. At that time I opposed an Amendment to Clause 4 extending the provision to aircraft. I said that the same problems did not arise in the case of aircraft as in the case of ships and that it was questionable whether they would ever do so. I pointed out in particular that under our law aircraft, unlike ships, could not be arrested for a wage claim and that crew members of aircraft were not usually away from their posts for long enough to make it worth while for them to attempt to bring proceedings in a foreign court. As there did not seem to be any problem, I did not think there was a case for amending Clause 4 to include aircraft. I continue to think that these reasons are cogent, but since I spoke in Committee a new factor has been brought to my attention.
9.30 p.m.
Two of our consular Conventions—the Convention with Poland and the Con-

vention with Bulgaria—contain provisions which affect the issue. These two Conventions, which were signed on 23rd February, 1967, and on 13th March last, respectively, have not yet been brought into force. It is our normal policy—and this would follow what I said in Committee—to resist proposals by other States for the inclusion of provisions on civil aviation in consular Conventions. This is because consuls have few established functions in this sphere, and, in our view, questions relating to aircraft are best regulated by special arrangements on civil aviation, whether they be bilateral or multilateral. In some instances, however—and this is the important point—we have agreed to the inclusion in a consular Convention of an article extending the provisions on merchant shipping to cover civil aviation also. Where this has been done, the object of the concession was to obtain more satisfactory provisions on other matters, including, in particular, merchant shipping.
We see no objection to the extension of these civil jurisdiction provisions to aircraft, although from our point of view, for the reasons which I have already given, we think that the extension is unnecessary.
Both the Conventions with Poland and Bulgaria contain an article dealing with civil but not with criminal jurisdiction over ships. I think that this is an important and relevant point. Both also contain an article extending the shipping articles to cover aircraft.
It is arguable that the provisions in question do not effectively apply in relation to civil aircraft since they refer to disputes between the master and members of the crew of a ship. The commander of an aircraft, unlike the master of a ship, cannot be sued as the representative of the owners. The intention of the policy is to cover, in the case of ships, all disputes over wages and contracts of service and a clearer form of wording has been worked out for future Conventions. It is, therefore, desirable to take the necessary powers now in case we should find it expedient to make the shipping provisions of some future Conventions applicable to civil aircraft.
I must apologise, in this rather complicated matter, that these Amendments


were riot made in Committee, which would have been the appropriate time. The two Amendments which I have proposed in Clause 16, involving the insertion of a reference to aircraft, are consequential to the Amendments proposed to Clause 4, and it is unnecessary to add anything further on that.
I was not quite clear, Mr. Speaker, from what you said at the beginning of our proceedings, whether you were—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I neglected to say that with these Amendments we shall also take Amendment 9, in Clause 16, page 8, line 41, at end insert:
and, for the purposes of section 4 an aircraft,
and Amendment 10, in page 8, line 45, at end add "or aircraft". I hope that helps the hon. Member.

Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. I think that what I have already said covers Clause 16, to which Amendments 9 and 10 relate, so I will rest my case at that point.

Mr. Speaker: Again I remind the House that with this Amendment we are taking Amendments 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am glad that the Minister has put in these Amendments. As the Under-Secretary said, it would have been much easier had we been able to discuss them in Committee, but I understand the reasons why he was not then able to put them in.
From what the hon. Gentleman has said and from correspondence which he kindly sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), I gather that these Amendments have been put in essentially to enable the British negotiators to obtain quid pro quos in their negotiations for the AngloPolish and Anglo-Bulgarian bilateral Conventions which have now been agreed. I am sure that they are very sensible. They improve both these Conventions and we support the Amendments.
I find it a little strange that the hon. Gentleman has yielded to the blandishments of either the Foreign Office negotiators or the representatives of Bulgaria

and Poland whereas he refused to yield to the blandishments of this side in Committee. While welcoming the Amendments which he has put down, we had expected him to carry logic further and accept the changes which we have proposed elsewhere in the Bill.
Our purpose in suggesting that powers should be taken to include aircraft is simply to extend the area in which consuls are safeguarded in the execution of their consular work to aircraft and airports instead of confining it under the Bill to ships and maritime harbours. It is worth underlining the reasons. More and more people are travelling by air. Those coming to Britain by aircraft now easily outnumber those coming by sea. Aircraft are increasing in size, and we shall shortly have the enormous Jumbo jets. As a matter of statistical probability, there are much more likely to be incidents or offences at airports or in and around aircraft which concern consuls than in ships themselves. Aircraft involve tens of millions, whereas ships today involve only hundreds of thousands.
In addition, aircraft now carry a much larger proportion of the items in which consuls are likely to be interested. They carry the diplomatic bags. They carry gold. Not many days ago, a great deal of gold was carried to this country by air. More and more, we are finding, and shall find, incidents involving consuls at airports and concerning aircraft. There was the case of the Soviet diplomat, Mr. Kravchenko, who was carried on board a Soviet aircraft at London Airport. There was the gold smuggling case involving aircraft of B.O.A.C. There was the case of Mr. Soblen, the American who jumped bail and was then brought back en route to America to London Airport, where a great deal of consular argument took place. There have been a number of difficult problems involving immigration and sabotage in each of which consuls have been asked to intervene.
I put it to the Minister that, if his logic is right, if he has been prevailed upon by the Poles, the Bulgarians or his own negotiators to amend Clause 4 in the way proposed, it is reasonable that, almost consequentially, the argument should be carried into the other Clauses. Aircraft today are just as relevant—indeed more relevant—to the functions of a consul than are just ships and harbours.


Therefore, in welcoming the Government Amendments, I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the logic of including Amendments 5 and 6.

Mr. William Rodgers: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffith) suggested that I had responded to the blandishments either of the Foreign Office or of the Poles and Bulgarians. This is not altogether true. I have not responded to their blandishments, but I have considered the issue afresh, as it were. I am afraid that I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's blandishments and advise the House to accept the Opposition Amendments.
In speaking to the Government Amendments, I emphasised that we were dealing with civil proceedings affecting crews. The Amendments put down by hon. Members opposite come into a different category, affecting criminal proceedings and other disciplinary offences. That is a very good reason for not treating them on the same basis as Clause 4 and not responding to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
I have considered the matter most carefully since we discussed it in Committee. I felt then that perhaps I had not carried the hon. Gentleman with me or necessarily made wholly clear the distinction between Clause 4 and Clauses 5 and 6. Because there is a very important difference, and because, as I explained, there are special circumstances which led us to propose an Amendment to Clause 4, I ask the House not to make an Amendment to Clauses 5 and 6.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 2, in page 4, line 5. after 'ship', insert 'or aircraft'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Clause 5.

(JURISDICTION OVER OFFENCES COMMITTED ON BOARD SHIP.)

Mr. Speaker: We come to Amendment 3, with which we shall discuss the following Amendments:
Amendment 4: In page 4, line 13, after 'ship', insert 'hovercraft or aircraft'.
Amendment 7: In Clause 6, page 4, line 40, after 'ship', insert 'hovercraft or aircraft'.
Amendment 8: In page 5, line 4, after 'ship', insert 'hovercraft or aircraft'.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment 3, in page 4, line 12, after 'ship', insert 'hovercraft or aircraft'.
I made my case in my comments on the Minister's Amendment, and I do not think that there is any point in taking the time of the House to press the matter further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16.

(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, COMMENCEMENT AND REPEAL.)

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 8, line 41 at end insert:
'and, for the purposes of section 4 an aircraft,'.

Amendment No. 10, in page 8, line 45, at end add 'or aircraft'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Title.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, after 'ships' to insert 'or aircraft'.
Here the Government may have benefited to a small extent from the Opposition's taking advice from the Clerks a little earlier than they did. I understand that none of the Government Amendments would be effective if the Title were not also amended. I therefore have much pleasure in moving the Amendment in the confident knowledge that the Government will have to accept it for otherwise their Amendments will fall.

Mr. Rodgers: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It now seems that this is a joint Bill, and I hope that the generosity with which the hon. Gentleman has helped it forward at this stage will persist in the short time ahead of us.

Amendment agreed to.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is designed to introduce a further element of order into one aspect


of relations between Governments. In a rather disordered world we cannot provide for the occasion when all the rules are ignored and conventional standards of international behaviour break down. We cannot make other Governments behave in a civilised manner if they are determined not to do so. It is inevitable that the Bill must be seen within those limits.
Enabling consuls more easily to carry out their proper functions helps the increasing number of people from this country who travel abroad either for business or pleasure. The Bill concerns the work of consular representatives of other countries in the United Kingdom. I said on Second Reading that the essential principle is one of reciprocity. We have had useful discussions on the details of the Bill at earlier stages and a number of constructive points have been made. I hope very much that we can now send it on its way.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: We welcomed this Bill on Second Reading, we welcome it now and wish it a fairly speedy passage. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is founded on the principle of reciprocity, and in what I have to say I shall simply be insisting that we must make the reciprocity genuine and real.
I start with several questions, some of which were raised in Committee and which I know the hon. Gentleman will wish to answer. As I understand it, when the Bill receives the Royal Assent, the provisions of the Vienna Convention will be brought into effect as far as foreign consuls in this country are concerned after a period of 13 days has elapsed from the deposit of the United Kingdom Certificate of Ratification. How many other countries will also have bound themselves to the Convention at that time?
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also consider letting the House have a list of which countries they are. I ask this because it is only right that Parliament should know whether we are ahead of or behind the majority of nations in this process of providing reciprocal rights to consuls. We should also know to which countries we shall be extending these new consular privileges and which ones will not enjoy them in Britain.
The second question concerns those countries with which the Government are either negotiating or proposing in future to negotiate further bilateral conventions, such as the Anglo-Polish, the Anglo-Bulgarian and the Anglo-Soviet conventions, for which this Bill makes provision. As I understand it, it is planned, for perfectly good reasons, to arrange in certain cases much wider reciprocal privileges than those the Vienna Convention provides and we would like to know which bilaterals are in prospect.
Another general question concerns the immunities which consular staff will enjoy in this country under this Bill. Some of my hon. Friends will have something to say about these immunities and there are three specific points to which we should be grateful for an answer.
The first concerns consuls' exemption from United Kingdom taxation. Since the Committee stage, we have had the Budget, and the exemptions from taxation under the Bill are therefore worth a good deal more than they were a few weeks ago. As far as consuls are concerned, I might say of the Budget that it is an ill wind which blows nobody some good. Obviously, if we want our own consuls to enjoy tax immunities abroad, we must reciprocally extend these tax exemptions in this country, but the House is entitled to know exactly where the Foreign Office intends to draw the line in regard to the types of taxation from which consular staffs will be immune and also the categories of consular employees who will be able to benefit.
For example, is a foreign consul to be free of Capital Gains Tax if he speculates in the British market? If a consular office purchases land and sells it, will it have to pay levy to the Land Com mission? If a foreign consul has a British wife, as many do, with a large income from investments, will he or she be assessed for the Chancellor's special charge on investment income? I could of course, raise a large number of these tax posers but I am sure that this would not be appropriate since this is not the Finance Bill and the hon. Gentleman and I are not accountants.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can only raise the various kinds of exemptions that he will find in Article 49 of the Schedule. At this stage he can only discuss what is in the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: I believe that the points I have mentioned are included—I hope so. I will confine myself to the general proposition that the House ought to have a clear statement of exactly which taxes foreign consuls are to be exempted from. That would be helpful to the consuls themselves. The same applies to the categories of consular employees covered in the Bill who are to enjoy these immunities, not only from tax but from Excise duties, possibly from motoring offences and conceivably, in certain circumstances, from civil suits arising from riots and affrays.
I recognise that reciprocity is the key, but there must be some limit to the extension of privileges in this country. Under the Vienna Convention, which this Bill will extend to consuls in this country, Article 49 extends privileges to:
Consular employees and members of their families.
Another article of the same Convention defines the Service Staff of consulates as including:
Any person employed in the domestic service of a Consular post.
That is a very wide definition, and could include a chauffeur, the personal valet, telephonist, secretary, file clerk, gardener, home help, child-minder, and, as the Bill defines it, all their families too. All or many of these people would be entitled under the Bill to considerable Excise and tax exemptions. Accepting the point of reciprocity, what I want the Minister to answer is how will the line be drawn between those who will benefit in a consular staff and those who will not?
I turn now to a matter raised in Committee, namely the question of foreign consul employees who may become involved in breaches of the peace. The case that I have in mind was that involving Members of the Chinese legation who last summer attacked British citizens, including British police, in a celebrated affray. In Committee these gentlemen were described as "club wielding diplomats." What we want to know is, in the event of a British subject being attacked by a consular employee eligible to claim immunity from prosecution under the Convention, to whom does that injured British citizen go for redress of his grievances? Whom does he sue for damages if the consulate or embassy claims diplomatic privilege, as I am told

the Chinese either did, or would have done if the matter had been pressed? In Committee the Minister said that the Government can always declare such a "club wielding diplomat" persona non grata. No doubt we can but we do not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Can the hon. Gentleman provide the Committee page number?

Mr. Griffiths: I am afraid that it would take longer than it ought to, but I can assure you that it is there, on several occasions.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Page number 11.

Mr. Griffiths: Thank you. We do not always declare a diplomat persona non grata, often for very good reasons. It seems that the police and the courts need clarification on this. It is certainly no good to talk vaguely of reciprocity when, as all the world knows, the rules of diplomatic etiquette are simply not observed in Peking.
The Bill extends privileges to foreign consuls in this country for the purpose of serving their governments in every legitimate fashion. This includes, as it must, the right to provide assistance to nationals of these countries who may fall into distress. We accept this principle wholeheartedly. I have benefited from it personally in Budapest, Jordan and elsewhere. But I hope that we are going to see rather more vigorous efforts being made to ensure that British consuls abroad enjoy the reciprocity that the Vienna Convention lays down. In other words, it is up to the Government, in asking Parliament for these powers, to make sure that the same advantages, including in particular consular access to British citizens detained in foreign gaols, are provided to our missions abroad.
Here, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will mention very briefly two specific cases which we believe are important. The first is that of Mr. Gerald Brooke. He has now been in gaol for two and a half years, and I hope that the Minister will say a further word about this very distressing case. We were told in Committee that the Soviet authorities had said that once this Bill is passed they will provide consular access. I hope very much that this happens and that it will happen soon. But I hope, too, that we


are not going to regard it as a concession. As we see it, the British Consul in Moscow has always had the undoubted right of access to Mr. Brooke, even though that has been denied to him, and whether or not this Bill is passed this right of access is something which I believe the Government will want to reiterate very firmly. It is quite monstrous that Mr. Brooke should have been denied this access for so long. I hope, too, that the Government will not simply be satisfied with the consular access that is almost promised by the Soviet authorities if this Bill is passed, but will take the opportunity to press for something more than access—namely, for this man's release.
The second case I want to mention concerns a gentleman, Mr. Watt, who was recently announced to be under arrest in China. The details have been widely publicised and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) is planning, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, to fill in some of the details that I shall omit. But there is one point of principle I would put to the Minister. The announcement of Mr. Watt's detention was made on 13th March but it was not made by the Foreign Office: it was made by a Chinese newspaper. This might have been quite understandable had it not been for the fact that the Chinese announcement came almost six months after this British citizen was arrested. By the time the announcement was made, Mr. Watt had already been held without any consular access for a very long time, and the Foreign Office, of course, knew all about it. Yet, for reasons best known to itself, the Foreign Office decided to withhold this information from Parliament and from the public until the Chinese newspaper broke the story. There is a point of principle here on which the Minister will wish to comment, and it is this. To what extent is the Foreign Office justified in withholding information about a British citizen arrested in a foreign country? And, if it is so justified, for how long should the Foreign Office withhold that information?
We accept that this is a matter of the most delicate judgment. On the one hand, there is the proper desire not to compromise any of the intensive behind-the-scenes efforts that are being made to get the man out; that is entirely

right and we understand it. But, on the other hand, it cannot be right that British citizens can be thrown into gaol abroad and held for long periods with Parliament and the British public being allowed to know nothing about it unless the arresting authorities—in this case the Chinese—themselves choose to make it public.
The Minister will know that some time ago I wrote to him asking for a list of those British citizens held under arrest abroad and denied access by British consuls. In his reply he refused to provide the information and gave his reasons. He said that it could compromise efforts to obtain their release and that, in certain circumstances, it could cause distress to the relatives. But I ask him to look at this practice whereby a British citizen can virtually sink without trace and no one know anything about it unless some gentleman in the Foreign Office decides that it is safe to make it public. Would we have know about Mr. Watt's detention if the Chinese themselves had not announced it? During the Committee stage, the Minister knew that this man was held, but he did not feel it right to tell us.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Consular Relations Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Griffiths: I think that I have made the point, and I hope that the Minister will feel it right to comment on it.
We welcome the Bill. We accept the principle of reciprocity on which it is based. We believe that it will be of benefit to British consuls and, we hope, to British citizens abroad. That is the main thing. But we want to be sure that it is a genuine and not simply a theoretical or verbal reciprocity. It is not good enough just to pass the necessary legislation and then to apply the doctrine of doing unto others in this country as we hope they will do unto us and our citizens and consuls abroad. It must be a two-way street.
We support the Bill on the understanding that the Government will ensure that in matters concerning British subjects and Her Majesty's consuls abroad the principle shall be that others must do unto us and to our people as we in this country do unto them and their's.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I should like to refer briefly to the Vienna Convention to which effect is given by the Bill. I refer particularly to Chapter I, Article 5, on page 11 of the Bill. Paragraph (a) provides that the consular's functions shall consist in
protecting … the interests of … its nationals … within the limits permitted by international law".
Paragraph (i) provides for the
representing or arranging appropriate representation for nationals … before the tribunals and other authorities … for the purpose of obtaining, in accodance with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, provisional measures for the preservation of the rights and interests of these nationals …
As the background to these provisions, I should like briefly to draw attention to the case of a constituent of mine, Mr. George Watt. I was horrified when I was told last weekend by the mother of Mr. Watt of the circumstances surrounding his case.
Hitherto, I have always looked on the Chinese as a cultured and highly civilised people and, therefore, I was very distressed to hear that this man—an engineer, who had gone to Lanchow, in China, with his firm, Vickers-Zimmer, to help construct a synthetic fibre plant costing £2½million—had been arrested by the Chinese. He had gone to China in December, 1966, and was joined there by his wife in July last year. His wife left him on 7th September, and some days later he was confined under house arrest by the Chinese.
This was at a time when the cultural revolution was at its height and conditions in China were very disturbed. Our mission in Peking had been sacked. Therefore, it is perhaps understandable that our chargé d'affaires was not able to deal effectively with the case. However, since then, I believe that conditions have very much improved in China. Therefore, it distresses me particularly, and the wife and relatives of Mr. Watt, to learn

that he has now been charged—five or six months later—with an offence and sentenced to three years imprisonment and yet our consular officials have not been allowed to visit Mr. Watt before or since his conviction. I believe that no communication has been received from him. It has not been possible to ascertain his side of the story. It is not possible for his wife to write to him or to send him, for instance, a food parcel should he need it. Nothing is known about the health or affairs of this constituent of mine and no direct communication has been possible with him since September of last year.
I feel very strongly that this is an example of barbarous and uncivilised action on the part of the Chinese. The charge, I feel, has been trumped up and is completely unfounded. I should like to know from the Minister tonight what steps the Government intend to take in order to put matters right. It has been said—and it was said during the debate on Second Reading—that the Chinese desire to correct the unfortunate image which has been created by the excesses of the Cultural Revolution. I believe that if they are sincere in this, as a token of their desire to improve relations with this country, long-standing trading and cultural relations as well as political relations, which we are dealing with in this Bill, Mr. Watt should be released. His colleague, Mr. Deckart, a German, was released and deported at the time of Mr. Watt's trial.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have profound sympathy with the case the hon. Gentleman is advancing, but he must ask on this Bill for consular access to his constituent, Mr. Watt.

Mr. MacMaster: Of course. I cut short these detailed remarks and ask the Minister if he can ensure that under the terms of this Bill we shall be permitted to have consular access and also that under the provisions of the Geneva Convention, we shall be given details of the charges which were made against Mr. Watt.
I feel—and this has been widely dealt with in the Press and I was particularly interested in an article in The Times which the Minister will have seen—that we must at this stage consider reviewing


our commercial and diplomatic relations with China. Obviously, they cannot continue on the present basis. It appears that our consular staff in Pekin are severely restricted and under the heading of reciprocity, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) I feel that we should ourselves consider what reciprocity is appropriate in view of the way in which British citizens are being treated in China. I feel that the minimum courtesies of international behaviour have been ignored in this case, and that a man who was in China for purposes of trade and technical aid to the Chinese should not be subject to treatment in this fashion. I would ask the Minister, therefore, that the normal procedure for the protection of British nationals should be insisted upon in this particular case.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: Before we finally pass this Bill, I would like to ask whether we have any plans for acting under Clauses 2 and 3 which give us t le right to restrict or increase the privilege.> and immunities accorded to consular posts of certain countries.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), I have been alarmed by the treatment handed out to Mr. George Watt. I, too, would like to have pressed the Minister to make a statement about the Foreign Office's responsibilities for making known more widely the news of the arrest of a British national abroad. I am not convinced that Mr. Watt is the only British national detained in China today. I have heard of a case which bears some resemblance to that of Mr. Watt, but which is somewhat different.
One knows of the difficult negotiations involved in cases of this sort. A great deal has to be done behind the scenes. However, the Foreign Office also has responsibilities to other British nationals. On the day on which I first heard of the detention in China of this British national, four more businessmen and technicians were going into China with the encouragement of the British Government. One wonders whether they knew before they went about the risks that they were running. In responding

to my hon. Friend, I hope that the Minister will recognise that the Foreign Office's responsibility is not only to those in detention but to those who unknowingly put themselves in jeopardy.
Some action under Clauses 2 and 3 would seem to be relevant in the case of the detention of the British pilots in Algeria. It is true that our consular officials managed to obtain access to them and, plainly, a great deal was done to lighten their lot while undergoing this unjust detention. However, I notice that a bill for certain comforts which the pilots obtained has been presented to the company concerned by the Foreign Office. It might have been more acceptable to have withdrawn the financial immunity of the Algerian consular representatives here for two or three days to claw back the money spent on books, magazines, fruit and so on, rather than sending their company a bill. In practice, I know that that would be quite impossible, but one wonders whether the temporary lifting of immunities might not be a deterrent to the flagrantly unfair treatment of British citizens abroad.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, I am worried about the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke. It may be that the course of action outlined by the Minister in Committee of going forward and signing a new Anglo-Soviet convention will have some practical effect on this case. It is plainly a sorry story. We have objected to this flagrant abuse of our consular rights, but our objections have been ignored. We have taken no counter-measures to back our 'protests. Everyone knows that we will take no counter-measures. As a result, not only has Gerald Brooke been devalued, but all our rights have been devalued a little.
Although the Bill is a technical one, the way in which our consuls and our citizens abroad are treated is a direct reflection on our national standard. The fact that in too many cases in recent months British consular rights have been over-ridden has something to do with the feeling of national malaise that appears to exist today.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), in his typically meticulous way, asked a number of questions. If the House did not mind being too long


detained, I should be very happy to go through them in detail, but I think that at this late hour I should try to limit myself to one or two of the outstanding ones, in the knowledge that the hon. Gentleman, of all Members, will be thorough enough to ask Parliamentary Questions if he believes that some information which should have been forthcoming has not been given to the House.
Twenty-eight countries have bound themselves to the Vienna Convention, as the hon. Gentleman said. Now is not the time to list them all, but this is the type of precise information which I should be only too glad to give in a Written Answer. I do not think that it is very desirable to detail all the negotiations which are going on for bilateral conventions. As the House will appreciate, there are delicate aspects here and it would be better to leave it like that for the moment.
The hon. Gentleman asked questions about exemption from United Kingdom taxation and where to draw the line. He raised some very interesting questions about how the exemptions within the Bill might apply to budgetary changes. I do not think that I can go into this detail now, nor into the interesting question of how to define "a household". There is no definition within the Vienna Convention, but as a general rule it will be understood to cover the spouse—usually the wife—and minor children of the individual who are resident with them. There could be a dispute in this matter, but it is one which could be settled by the Foreign Office and the interested home Departments in consultation with the authorities of the country concerned.
In addition, as in other respects in the Bill, we must rely upon a certain amount of common sense and give and take and on the assumption that, by and large, with some notable exceptions mentioned tonight, countries deal with each other in a responsible way. The purpose of the exemptions from taxation is reciprocity. As I said on the last occasion, what we lose on the swings we reckon that we gain on the roundabouts. This is something which, although it is of proper concern to the House, need not worry it for too long tonight.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question, which also arose in Committee,

about an affray. First, it will usually happen that the causing of an affray or any other deliberate assault would not be regarded by the courts or by any other authorities as being performed in the exercise of consular functions and, therefore, no immunity would be afforded under Article 43. However, as I said in Committee, it is possible that in certain circumstances an act of violence could be regarded as performed in the exercise of consular functions. In this case the victim could bring proceedings in the court to recover damages, and it would be for the court to decide, in the light of its findings on the facts, whether a claim to immunity was justified. I think that there is here a redress which represents the sort of safeguard which the hon. Gentleman was seeking.
The hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), raised important matters concerning British subjects who are detained abroad. I appreciate the feelings of the House on this. It is something with which we should properly be concerned.
The question of Gerald Brooke was first mentioned. May I say in passing, because there is not a great deal that I can add to what I told the House in Committee, and it has been said since then, that we have been continuing to press the Soviet authorities for access to Mr. Brooke. So far this has not been given to us, but, in view of the assurances which we have received from the Soviet authorities, I believe that our best chance of securing what we want lies in pressing on and bringing the Convention into force as soon as we can complete the necessary procedures. This is still our view. Meanwhile, the information which we have received from the Soviet authorities suggests that Mr. Brooke's health is reasonably good, despite some of the troubles that he has had in the past. I think we can feel confident that he is being properly looked after in this respect, though his total treatment remains far from satisfactory.
The question has been raised of Mr. Watt who, on 15th March, was sentenced by the Chinese authorities to three years' imprisonment for espionage, and perhaps at this point I might mention Anthony Grey whose name has not been mentioned this evening, but whose case was


raised at an earlier stage, and also one other British citizen whom we believe to be detained in China, Mr. Barrymaine, a freelance journalist. When we received a report on 14th March that he had failed to arrive in Hong Kong, we began inquiries, and we have discovered that he was taken into custody in Shanghai on or about 23rd February. No reason has been given for his detention.
In Mr. Barrymaine's case we have addressed a note to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and in the case of Mr. Watt we have been persistent over the whole period since his detention on 26th September, that was the date when he was placed under house arrest. We have made representations to the Chinese authorities at frequent intervals, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It is a revelation that yet another British citizen is held in China. Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that there are others? Are there any others known to the Foreign Office? At this stage I am not asking for the names, but is it possible that once again there are people held in China whose names the Foreign Office is not willing to disclose, for one reason or another?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman made that point in his speech, and I was hoping to come to it, because this is an important matter of principle. The only British citizens whom we believe to be detained in China are the three I have mentioned, Grey, Watt and Barrymaine. If Barrymaine's case is a revelation, I think I should say that it has been mentioned in the newspapers, and that we have not consciously withheld any information from the House about it.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman said that representations had been made to the Chinese in the Watt case. Have these representations been made in London through the Chargé d' Affaires here, or just in Peking?

Mr. Rodgers: That question was asked in the House last Wednesday, and although this goes a little outside the terms of the Bill I should say that with regard to relations with the Chinese, as with some other countries, it is a matter of judgment to decide where we can best bring pressure to bear. It is our ex-

perience that representations made in Peking are more likely to be effective. This is the channel of communication which the Chinese prefer, and representations here have not necessarily brought any great success, but as the hon. Gentleman may recall, I have on one occasion seen the Chinese Chargé d'Affairs. If we felt that it was desirable to make representations through him, we would certainly do so. It is simply a question of convenience and effectiveness, and nothing else.
The hon. Member for Bury St:Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) made an important point when he asked how the Foreign Office decided to withhold information, and he suggested that British citizens might sink without trace. There is a difficult question of judgment here, not only in respect of these three men detained in China but in repect of others who are from time to time detained in other countries.
The extreme options are, on the one hand, to say nothing—to keep quiet and work behind the scenes—and, on the other, to seek the maximum publicity. I will only say that, after the mast careful examination, in nine cases out of ten it is our judgment that a massive publicity campaign will not produce results and can sometimes harm the individual who is held. It is a question of judgment and it is not an easy one. I do not think that in any of these cases do we conceal something, either from the House or the public.
It is very rare for someone to be detained abroad—and this applies in these three cases, as in the case of Gerald Brooke—without having a relative, employer. friend or somebody here who is prepared to speak out on his behalf. It would be totally beyond the competence of the Foreign Office to say to any such friend, relative or employer, "You must not make known publicly the fact that this man is held" or, alternatively, "You must not conduct a campaign in the Press, in Parliament or elsewhere."
We seek to discuss the circumstances of the individual concerned and try to arrive at some sort of agreement on the right course to pursue. For that reason, as we are not the only channel of communication, I do not think that we could make arbitrary decisions which might


result in somebody being held without publicity.

Mr. Goodhart: Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, does he recognise that there is some doubt about other British nationals who may venture into this difficult area not knowing the risks to which they are subjecting themselves?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that point in his speech. That is certainly the case, although I do not believe that anybody who goes to China today is unaware of the risks involved. The House may be satisfied to know that, in so far as it is ncessary, we draw to the attention of anyone going to China, for business or other purposes, what real risks are involved and what those risks are in terms of self interest. We do not want to have an increasing number of British subjects held in intolerable circumstances.
I said at the outset that, of course, we cannot make other Governments behave in a civilised manner if they are determined not to do so and that the Bill should be seen within these limits.

I regret that China is one outstanding example—not only British subjects but the subjects of virtually every other country have suffered—of a country which, for the time being, is certainly unwilling to conform to conventional standards of international behaviour.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — CLEAN AIR BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That Standing Committee C be discharged from considering the Bill:

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Robert Maxwell.]

Hon. Members: Object.

It being after Ten o'clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — FALKLAND ISLANDS AND DEPENDENCIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

10.30 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Earlier today the Prime Minister announced the impending amalgamation of the Commonwealth Office with the Foreign Office. The timing of his statement can only have increased the fears felt in Gibraltar, British Honduras and in the Falkland Islands—already the subject of a breakfast time debate in the all-night sitting—that in future Commonwealth obligations may come second to the expediencies of foreign policy.
I am most grateful for the opportunity of reverting to the question of the Falkland Islands after the ambiguities of the Foreign Secretary in that debate and those of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in another place. Apart from their constitutional future, the security of the Falkland Islands is causing more immediate apprehension. This has just been voiced for example, by the senior elected member of Stanley Town Council, Mr. Goss.
During the all-night sitting, I put some questions to the Foreign Secretary about naval and local protection and the Royal Marine detachment. The Foreign Secretary decided that these vital matters were not for him. I hope that we may find some comfort tonight. The Foreign Secretary said, on that occasion, as he had indicated in a speech in Buenos Aires in 1966, that Britain does not recognise Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. We have no doubt that Britain is the sovereign Power. What is in doubt is the Government's determination, or even intention, to maintain British sovereignty as long as the Falkland Islands wish to remain British.
The Foreign Secretary went on to specify circumstances in which British sovereignty might be transferred. This was more than an academic speculation. It is admitted that British sovereignty is the subject of discussion in the Anglo-Argentine talks. The Foreign Secretary did not rule out a cession of sovereignty.

He insisted that it be part of a satisfactory agreement, satisfactory, that is, in the eyes of the islanders.
Let us suppose—I regret to have to make this supposition, but there is more than one example in our imperial history of the abandonment of loyal overseas communities—that there is a Minister, or Ministers, eager for the reduction of our country to a little Britain freed from too onerous overseas responsibilities, particularly those which can prove an embarrassment to our commerce and diplomacy, and therefore a decision has been made to surrender at some future moment sovereignty in return for a special privileged status for the Falkland islanders. I do not know if this is the case, but let us suppose that it is. If it became clear to the people of the Falkland Islands that Britain was preparing to desert them, what could they do other than accept the best terms obtainable and any agreement then proferred would have to be considered satisfactory. The decision, in the event, whether the agreement was indeed "satisfactory to their interests" would be made by their British betrayers.
I do not believe that any agreement for the transfer or pooling or adulteration of British sovereignty could guarantee the rights of the Falkland islanders. The Argentine authorities might be acting in good faith, but either they or their successors would find it difficult to exempt the islanders from conscription and to confer other privileges denied to other minorities within their great republic. It is likely that, whatever was written in the agreement, the islanders, or many of them, would seek new homes in Australia, perhaps or New Zealand. That might be regarded as a solution of the problem, but it would be a solution of shame and infamy.
I regret that the Foreign Secretary failed to allay existing suspicions and that Lord Chalfont in another place aroused new suspicions. The noble Lord distinguished between the status of Falkland islanders as British subjects and the future of the territory settled by British folk at the expense of no native population, for when they came there was none. What ingenious constitutional or citizenship device buzzes within that agile mind? We can all have our


guesses. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us what in fact it is all about.
Strangest of all was the noble Lord's rejection of a request for a plebiscite on the absurd ground "that the community is too small." But democratic processes are most appropriate to small communities of common outlook, and the consultation of a few is all the easier to arrange. When it suits them, the Government treat the United Nations Charter as though it were holy writ, but the Falkland islanders are denied any assurance that they will be free to exercise the right of self-determination enshrined in the Charter.
Of course, good relations with Argentina are most important. There are valuable deals afoot. I am all for reducing the persistently adverse balance of trade between the United Kingdom and Argentina. I will spare the House any reference to the Prime Minister's objection to selling frigates to what he called "fascist" Spain with its design on Gibraltar. The question I put is: how are good relations furthered by the discussion of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands with the power that claims to possess them? Unless—and I prefer not to accept this—the Government are bent on betrayal, they are raising false hopes in Argentina which, if dashed, may turn to sour resentment. The Government might be accused of perfidy, but I do not believe that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen sitting there will be party to so sordid a deal.
Another interpretation is that the present dangerous confusion is the mark of a battered, flabby, divided Administration lacking courage, confidence and conviction. But unfortunately they are the Government of the day, so I beg for their reassurances tonight.
May I ask the Minister of State, when he replies, to give a simple affirmative answer to one question: will Her Majesty's Government undertake that in no circumstances will they transfer or share British sovereignty in and over the Falkland Islands and dependencies unless that is the declared wish of the inhabitants? Let it go forth from this House tonight that those who have trusted us and fought for us and died for us and who desire to live in a British way,

on British territory, under the British flag, will not be abandoned by the country that they still call home.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I want but one thing: an express undertaking from the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs that there will be no transfer of sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, sovereignty of people or land, to any other country without the express consent of the inhabitants of those islands. Yes or no, that is what I want.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I intervene very briefly to put one question. It is really the same question that has just been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). I do so, because, since the Foreign Secretary addressed the House early yesterday morning on this subject, answers were given in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, which have, once again, aroused doubt and anxiety about the Government's intentions. My information is that dismay has also been caused in the Falkland Islands. One member of the Legislative Council has already telegraphed his fears to this country on the subject.
We on this side want a straight answer to the question: will Her Majesty's Government make it clear beyond any doubt that there will be no transfer of sovereignty in the Falkland Islands against the wishes of the wholly British population of that territory?

10.39 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): There has been a substantial debate on this subject within recent memory, and the Foreign Secretary then made what most right hon. and hon. Members regarded as a full and admirably clear statement about Her Majesty's Government's attitude on this matter. I want to say at the outset that I see no dichotomy at all between what he said early yesterday morning and what my noble Friend Lord Chalfont said in another place in answering questions on this matter.
I go further. I understand and appreciate the deeply sincere feelings which


animate hon. Members on both sides in regard to the future of the Falklands. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I—indeed I believe everyone—share these feelings full. I do not believe there is any difference of meaning and intention between what my right hon. Friend said so lucidly and categorically yesterday and the requests made by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and others tonight. It simply involves a replacement of considered words which really mean what they say by words which the hon. Gentleman proposes. I stick by the words of my right hon. Friend, which are clear beyond any doubt.
I ask the hon. Gentleman and the House to ponder on this point: hon. Members who are sincerely concerned about the future of the islands might consider whether constantly to cast doubt on assurances such as those given by my right hon. Friend yesterday morning might not recreate the very anxieties it was his genuine purpose to allay. It is quite remarkable that the statement he made should be called into question. Frankly—and I make no partisan point of this—I cannot think of a better way of expressing the intentions which we all share.
The hon. Gentleman raised one or two questions relating to the United Nations. This links with criticisms which have been made about whether these talks should have been started at all. My right hon. Friend gave very cogent reasons why they should have been started and should continue. The first relates to the United Nations. Resolution 2065 of the 20th Assembly, in December, 1965, invited the United Kingdom and Argentina to come together to seek a peaceful solution of the differences between them, and in the spirit of that Resolution we responded and the discussions have proceeded and may well proceed and continue in an effort to compose the dispute between two countries which have long been friends, and, indeed, allies.
There is, secondly, the fact that the Islands have constituted a point of resentment, almost a running sore, in our relations with Argentina for well over a century, and, without betraying our obligations to the population of the islands, we want to do what we can to improve relations with Argentina and with Latin

America as a whole. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, will agree that there is need for good relations with Argentina and South America generally. The hon. Gentleman has said so, and his hon. Friend has made this clear. He knows that this is so. In supporting that cause of the people of the islands, which we all equally cherish, the House will agree that a secure and prosperous future for them rests largely on good relations between them and the mainland.
There is another reason for the talks. More recently there has been an interruption of communications between the Islands and the mainland. This has meant difficulty, inconvenience, even vexation, as my right hon. Friend said. It is right that we should sit down and talk with Argentina about ways and means of solving these practical difficulties.

Mr. Braine: Who is causing these difficulties? Are they being caused by the Falkland islanders?

Mr. Roberts: They are caused, of course, by the situation in the area. The hon. Gentleman, a former Minister, will understand when I say that, whatever the causes of these difficulties, it is right that we should sit down with the Argentinians and try to resolve them. We believe that if we can get a satisfactory agreement with Argentina this will be in the best interests of the islanders in the end.
For these reasons, while not doubting that sovereignty is legally ours, the question of sovereignty has been included in our discussions. But the question of a transfer of sovereignty can be considered only if certain important conditions are satisfied. The first is that it would have to be, if there were proposals, as part of an agreement which would secure a permanently satisfactory relationship between the islands and Argentina, in which there would be no harassment and no inconveniences for the islanders. There would also have to be the fullest safeguards for the special rights of the islands. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the final right to agree to any cession of sovereignty lies with Her Majesty's Government here in the


United Kingdom. But they would agree to such a transfer, if a proposal were made, only on the conditions I have already mentioned and—I spell this out once more—only if it were clear to Her Majesty's Government that the islanders themselves regarded such an agreement as satisfactory to their interests.

Mr. William Molloy: Whilst I can see the good sense of talking to anyone about communications, I hope that my hon. Friend will say that there is not the slightest chance of Her Majesty's Government being conned into a discussion about the future of the Falkland Islands. That does not arise.

Mr. Roberts: I am not quite sure what reply my hon. Friend would like to that intervention. If I repeated the words of my right hon. Friend he might find that his anxieties were fully allayed. He said:
… only if it were clear to us, to the Government in the United Kingdom, that the islanders themselves regarded such an agreement as satisfactory to their interests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 1464.]
Clarity cannot proceed beyond that.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman does reply in the affirmative to my question and that there will not be cession of sovereignty if it is not the desire of the people of the Falkland Islands? If he says that he prefers his words, and they mean the same as mine, I am content.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is at least as intelligent as I am. He can read; he can hear. What possible lack of clarity can there be in the sentence I have repeated? To go on about words and phrases and to extract from them the substance of continual argument can only re-create the very anxieties we are all anxious to allay.

Mr. Braine: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman, before he sits down, would clear up one point, because I must say he is not being very clear or helpful, although I know he is trying to be.
It is simply this—at no stage have the people of the Falkland Islands been consulted about the negotiations. The Legis-

lative Council is in complete ignorance of them. Members of the Governor's Executive Council know about them, but are under oath not to reveal what they know. The people have not been consulted. Yet we all know that the Falkland islanders are British, wish to remain British, and have told the United Nations so. Why cannot they be consulted now? Why cannot the hon. Gentleman say straight out that there can be no question of the British Government ceding sovereignty here over the heads of these people? Why cannot he give a straight answer to a straight question?

Mr. Roberts: I have already given a straight answer. The hon. Gentleman wants his own words. I really must remind hon. Members opposite of what I have just said—by this continual questioning of a sincere and carefully phrased assurance by the Foreign Secretary they are in danger of creating anxieties which, as I said, we had hoped to allay.

On the question of consultation—

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Roberts: I have given way generously. I am most anxious to make clear to the House what Her Majesty's Government's attitude is, which I am satisfied is an honourable and practical one.
Now consultation must be a continuous process. We are in close touch with opinion on the islands, and will continue to be so. We are certainly in no doubt about their present feelings. For instance, a few weeks ago at a general election on the islands all the candidates expressed themselves as strongly opposed to a transfer of sovereignty. There has been no move towards any change in the present Constitution, and Her Majesty's Government have no plans for any change, as we believe that these arrangements are working satisfactorily.
If and when proposals were made for a constitutional change, then that would be the time to consider any special means of deciding the islanders' reactions. In the meantime consultations will continue, as my right hon. Friend said yesterday, "in such manner and through such channels as seem most useful and appropriate".

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope he will understand that none of us who are concerned in this matter wish to add fuel to the flames in any way, quite the reverse. But there have been occasions recently when the Government had difficulty about other foreign affairs, which were previously within the province of Her Majesty's Government, and these have been handed over to the United Nations. Will the hon. Gentleman say that in no circumstances will this problem, which is a specifically British one, be handed over to the United Nations or be considered suitable to be dealt with by the United Nations?

Mr. Roberts: This is such a hypothetical question that really I should not be drawn into a hypothetical answer. I can see no prospect of this. One cannot look indefinitely into the future. But the question that has been raised is impossible to answer because there is no evidence of a possibility of this arising.
Reference was made to dismay in the Falkland Islands as a result of the statement trade yesterday. We have no evidence of this. On the contrary, Mr. Barton, of the Falkland Islands Executive Council, who is in London, has said that he regards the Foreign Secretary's statement as satisfactory.

Mr. Braine: He may now have said that, but this was before the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont, spoke. I have in my hand a telegram from the senior member of the Legislative Council saying "dismay reply Clark Hutchison". That was the reaction in the islands.

Mr. Roberts: I think on reflection and study the hon. Gentleman, and everyone else reading the exchanges in the other place yesterday and relating them to the very clear and full statement of my right hon. Friend yesterday, will see that there really is no disparity. I cannot understand why there should be any anxiety or dismay as a result of what was said in another place yesterday

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The Minister of State is being very considerate. Would he think it right to clear the point up and end the discussion by saying that the Foreign Secretary has said, in other words, that sovereignty will in no way be ceded against the wishes of the Falkland

islanders? If that is the significance of the Foreign Secretary's words, it will be a great comfort. Will he please give the answer "Yes"?

Mr. Roberts: I can only quote my right hon. Friend. His words are available in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have quoted them four or five times tonight. The hon. Gentleman knows that they are perfectly clear.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: No.

Mr. Roberts: To try to extract an answer in his own words instead of the Foreign Secretary's words is really not worthy of the hon. Gentleman as a Parliamentary performer.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Will my hon. Friend—

Mr. Roberts: I really must get on.
A question has been raised about the future security and defence of the Islands. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who told the House on 18th March that Her Majesty's Government are always concerned to ensure that adequate arrangements exist for the defence of the Falkland Islands. At present, our forces consist of a Royal Marine detachment and a small local defence force. Together these are considered adequate to deal with any situation foreseen at the present time. I might add that we do not expect a recrudescence of the unfortunate incident to which reference was made in the debate yesterday morning.
I hope that I have given the House the Foreign Secretary's assurance in a way which will enable us all to accept his words as meaning what they say—
… only if it were clear to us, to the Government in the United Kingdom, that the islanders themselves regarded such an agreement as satisfactory to their interests
would Her Majesty's Government agree to a cession.

Mr. Roebuck: My hon. Friend has spoken of the assessment which Her Majesty's Government have at present made about the feeling of the islanders. What steps have they taken to communicate this feeling to those responsible in Argentina?

Mr. Roberts: We have had and are having discussions with Argentina. In the course of those discussions, which


are confidential, no doubt, as occasion demands, such points are raised and made. We are in constant communication with the Governor, who in turn has been authorised to convey to members of the Executive Council what Her Majesty's Government are doing. I understand the difficulties of members of the Executive Council, who are under oath of secrecy not to impart this information to the islanders themselves. But this is inevitable because, in the normal course of diplomacy and international discussions there must be secrecy. Nevertheless, as

I said, if and when proposals are made, possibly for a cession or transfer of sovereignty, there would be ample opportunity for the islanders and the people of this country, for this House—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at one minute to Eleven o'clock.